Remakes vs Remasters | Settling The Debate 

Get a browser that’s literally better at everything: operagx.gg/JsReviews

Remasters are old games with updated, HD visuals. While Remakes are rebuilt from the ground up with better graphics, and maybe new voice actors and controls. The thing is, with each release, the line between them gets smaller every day until they feel like the same thing.

It annoys me how many people don’t know the difference. It's like film, when a movie is remastered in high definition, it's literally the same movie as before, just with improvements to the visual and audio quality which can be as simple as upping the resolution or as drastic as what George Lucas did to the Star Wars trilogy by changing the VFX. A remake on the other hand is literally what the name implies. It's making again from scratch. A new work based on an older work. That means rewriting, recasting, re-filming. Those same basic principles apply to video games.

I was introduced to a lot of franchises through ports and HD remasters. The PS3 was my gateway to Jak & Daxter, God of War, Ratchet & Clank, etc.

So, a couple others... Super Mario All-Stars! This one that came out on the SNES, had better graphics, music, sound effects, better features (Continue menu in 1, able to select characters more better in 2 and a greater slot machine), as well as changing what the kings got turned into in 3 (The king in world 7 gets turned into a Yoshi!). As well as adding The Lost Levels, giving everyone outside of Japan the first time playing the original SMB2! Then more recently, the Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters! Better Graphics, Sounds, Orchestrated Music, a fast forward feature, Some scenes like the Opera scene in 6 getting a 3D look and actual voice singing! The catch? None of the bonus features that were added to their versions on the GBA were added here!

Yeah the scale at the end makes a lot more sense. Cause remakes and remasters can have varying definitions. Honestly I used to think saying "Remaster" was just a "cool" way of saying "enhanced port" or something like that. Good video. Now do the sequel video: Demakes vs Demasters lol

There’s a bit of a double edged sword when it comes to two remakes in particular: Shot-for-shot remakes are more likely to bring back all the content from the original (Crash, Spyro, Advance Wars) at the cost of taking less risks. Whereas overhauls/reimaginings are more likely to leave stuff out for the sake of further fleshing out what was left (Final Fantasy VII, Resident Evil 4, Persona 3 Reload).

The reason “Remaster” is such a contentious term is probably due to the fact it originated to describe music, where “mastering” is a term that actually exists. Edit: and even then, people still confuse it with “remix”.

Hi J, I just wanted to let you know that Capcom has released a survey for resident evils fans to fill out and asking them which resident evil game should be remade next. So if you’re interested for that Code Veronica remake then you should fill out the survey whenever you like and request them to remake resident evil Code Veronica. But if you don’t want to then that’s fine. I thought you might want to know. Great video by the way.

Here’s a bit of advice on taking polls! You should definitely include an option on each individual game of “I’ve never played it.” or simply don’t make every question required to answer. As a mostly Nintendo gamer I definitely have valid thoughts on the Zelda and Metroid questions, but I have limited knowledge of the Resident Evil franchise so my answers on those ones will most likely skew the data. Just a recommendation for the future, I have had many a survey declined by college professors for not accounting for things like that. Great video by the way!

I've been annoyed with the remake/remaster discourse as well because nobody ever seems to bother defining what they actually are to them, they just throw the terms around like they don't mean anything. So I felt really gratified that you have such a good understanding of what they are. The movie comparison is very apt and is what my starting point is as well. Very well done!

You have no idea how happy I am you made this video- I'm very passionate about the differences between remakes remasters and reimaginings and often go into long winded explanations with examples of why different games can be categorized as such so seeing a video that both agrees with my view and visualizes it in a coherent, informative, and engaging way is such a breath of fresh air for me! Fantastic video, keep up the great content🤌

*THANK YOU FOR THIS.* For nearly a decade, I've been irritated by how many people can't tell the difference. It's so bad that even companies are getting it wrong... looking at you, Activision. And when I try to correct people, they double diwn and insist they're right and I'm wrong.

Ocarina of Time and Majoras Mask 3d are considered remakes because they were rebuilt from scratch and utilize vompletely different models and textures from.the original

I don't think Reimagining should even be an option to take in consideration in this case. As when you are remaking a game it also opens up the possibility to reimagine a few things and that is totally fine. A remake can be as faithful or different from the original game, as long as it is built from the ground up and a remaster is just as the name says: a remaster

Just wanted to add that Opera GX is an awful browser. Don't use it.

It's amazing how people keep getting remakes and remasters mixed up, they are totally different things

I tend to not use the terms Reimagine or Reboot, and stick to Port, Remaster, and Remake only because frankly, these are enough terms to fit all of these games into, and there's no need to overcomplicate it to such an extreme degree with more unnecessary terms. That said, personally, I will define a Remaster as a game which uses the original code to some degree and base the new game around that, and I will define a Remake as a game that completely remakes the game from scratch, code and all. That means that even games like Metroid Prime or The Last of Us PS5, or even the Zelda 3DS games and Bluepoint's works like Demon's Souls or Shadow of the Colossus are something I would consider a Remaster, because all of these games are confirmed to reference the original codebase to some degree. Other things like Dark Souls 'remastered' or The Last of Us PS4 are something I'd simply call a port. That's just me though, no one will agree with me lol. Anyway, that comment about Megaman X reminds me of something. You said that ports of these games are being emulated, slowdown and all. The 'slowdown and all' bit made me remember the MMX collection on PS2, which is, in fact also emulated (at least I think), but the notorious slowdown in X2 is completely absent from this collection. So in that regard, it just depends.

Here is my take. Remasters use the original code, making it run on modern system while brining enchantments to the original experience such as higher resolution, less compressed audio. (Source ports such as Duke Nukem 3D: Megaton Edition) A remake is new code intended to mimic the original code while also improving on it. (Mario All Stars, Crash Insane Trilogy) A reimagining is a remake the deviates from the original intended experience. (Tomb Raider 2013)

This is how it is for me: - Remaster: A game with an HD Filter and or more FPS - Remake: A game with better graphics overall and maybe some quality of life improvements - Reimagining: A whole new game pretending to be an old game, think of Final Fantasy 7 Remake and Resident Evil Remake :) But in the end it doesn't matter that much where do games fall since at the end of the day outside of a remaster which is just applying a filter all of these are like "We brought an old game for your new console and we got some nice ideas for improvement while making it 🌚"

I wish we got Devil May Cry Remakes tbh.

People voted that Ocarina of Time 3D is a port or remaster? Weird way to tell us that they know absolutely nothing about it, but okay. EDIT: They think Resident Evil 4 VR is a port. Okay, I didn't realize how many people had absolutely no clue what a port is.

I'd be curious to hear your new thoughts on metal gear solid, if it was MGS5 that changed your whole perspective. If you just played some of them 3 especially so much that things you didn't notice before no longer worked for you. Possibly other games that had a level of quality in their storytelling so when you went back it felt like a step down?

The difference between remaster, remake and re-imagening is easy to see if you look at what phase of the production cycle the radical changes happen. Pre-production = Re-imagening. Production = Remake. Post-production = Remaster. Films are a good analogue, but so is music. Re-master = Fiddle around with the mixing of old recordings. Re-make = Re-recording a song. Re-imagening = making a new song based on the old one, or concepts of the old one.

Is very easy RE 2002 remake is a REMAKE and Metroid Zero Mission is a remake. Last of us is a remaster and then got remasted AGAIN Then you have PORTS...same game running on different hardware but is the exact same game with nothing added or anything changed. Come on people it used to be so easy to understand.

I find it interesting that many agree remakes = built from the ground up, but would probably consider OoT 3d and TLoU Part as remakes, even though they're made with the original games source code

Without spoiling anything, Final Fantasy VII: Remake is actually a sequel to the original, despite the name. It makes more sense in the context of the game.

For me, I take a more technical view while also accounting the scale of changes. Remaster: Same Game, Same Engine, Barely Any Changes to core Mechanics and Story. EX: any of the PS2 -> PS3 Remasters. --A fringe case is Xenoblade Definitive Edition which takes the Chronicles 1 Engine, and Slaps in 2's Renderer and makes QoL changes. But the game is clearly built on 1 and doesn't change combat or whatnot. Remake: A game that is built on a brand new or dramatically altered version of the original engine/new version of the engine with changes to combat being permitted. But the overall game is very close. (Examples, Crash N Sane Trilogy, TLOUP1.etc) a fringe case would be NieR Replicant Ver 1.224. where it's the same OG Engine and the exact structure/story, but graphics, combat, VO, and OST are completely overhauled along with a lot of QOL. And also a new ending tying it to Automata a bit so it's def a Remake despite being the same base engine imho. Reimaginings are games that are based on a previous game but makes divergences that are completely removed from the original in regards to gameplay and/or content. So the RE Remakes are this as RE1R alters a crapload despite it's faithfulness, and the other 3 are obvs on this. Twin Snakes falls here too as it is a similar case as it makes content and story alterations that are more akin to MGS2 which wouldn't align with MGS1 FF7R is the odd one, as it's kinda a Sequel, Reboot, and Reimagining all at once. The Remake in it's title actually being a in-universe nod at the plot.

Final fantasy 7 remake is a sequel the story is essentially the villan is changing canon events of the orginal game that are supposed to happen

Capcom did re3 remake so dirty 🤣😭

A Remake is from the ground up A Remaster is usually the original but with an HD filter

It would be interesting to call the games thay have the same stuff but updated be called Redux, cause it gets revived and isnt changed with like the story or anything

I think where the confusion comes from is marketing Calling something Resident Evil Reimagining is gonna confuse your average normie consumer so they just use remake and they'll use remastered for more 1 to 1 remakes too The thing that splits remasters and remakes for me is whether or not I can spot the original assets Are the models the same but with nice textures Is the enviroment smoothed out but very clearly the same based that they went back to Could I hook up a controler to both the original and the new one and move in perfect sync

Just did the survey. I wished you had a none of the above for the oculus version of RE4 OG. I ultimately said a re-release, but I think given how VR works the game should be classified as "new" even though it heavily used assets from the og game.

I think there are fine lines between remasters and remakes. It all has to do with how much of the original game is used and how much has been remade. I don't distinguish between stuff that has been remade shot for shot and stuff that has been added or removed. For instance, Ocarina of Time 3D is a remake because the game was remade for 3DS. The only reason why people might get confused about it is because the developers used the original source code. In the end, my list of ways a game can be re-released was exactly the same as yours, except that I include your "overhauls" and "remakes" categories to just be one category called remakes. I also consider reboots to be on the far end past reimaginings.

Hello j can you make a video on sonic origins plus please

14:05 That's basically kinda in a nutshell of what I've been calling The Last of Us Part 1 on PS5. A Triple AAA Remaster Plus➕️

A remake is when a game is rebuilt from scratch with new code, assets, etc. It has been re *made.* A remaster takes what's already there (original code, sometimes original assets) and builds/improves upon it. A reimagining is basically just an entirely different game with the same general idea of the orignal A reboot has nothing to do with the original at all. Sonic Adventure DX is an example of a remaster. it's built from the same source code as the original game, just with new assets. Crash N-Sane Trilogy is a remake. Even though it plays very similar to the original with the same level designs and such, all of the code, assets, music, and pretty much everything about it was rebuilt from scratch. Black Mesa is both a reimagining. It's so transformative of the original work that it's basically an entirely different game, with the gunplay being almost entirely different and the level design only sharing occasional set pieces with the original (with xen being completely original). RE4 VR is almost definitely a remaster. I strongly doubt that most of the game's code is entirely new, and even if it is it's still using the game's original assets. It's not completely rebuilt from scratch. It's just RE4 with a different control scheme, no different from the Wii version. RE1 I have no idea. If it was built off of the original code, then it's a remaster. It doesn't look like it though, it's probably a remake.

I don't think the gap is between remasters and remakes anymore, but rather between remakes and reimaginings. FFVII Remake is not the same as the N. Sane Trilogy, Conker Live & Reloaded or Ocarina of Time 3D despite them all being technically "remakes." It is a _completely_ different game and you will have a _completely_ different experience to someone who played the original. Meanwhile, the Dead Space or Last of Us remakes lean more towards the original definition as they are not complete overhauls, however they're not common remasters akin to any last-gen game being ported to PS4/PS5 with slightly improved fidelity and frame rates like Bioshock, Dishonored or Borderlands. tl;dr Ports -> Remasters -> Remakes -> Reimaginings

Time to complicate things: There are remasters and there are enhanced ports. The term "remaster" comes from film, and refers to going back to the original film negatives themselves and re-printing them to film in higher quality- you're making a new master. This is generally done to present the film more faithfully by utilizing modern day technology. The equivalent of a port in movies would be taking that original old master and just dumping it on a new medium, think of movies that came out before DVDs getting a DVD release after previously only being available on VHS tape- those new DVD versions weren't remasters, they were just on a better, newer format, and while that format has inherent benefits, like higher picture detail thanks to digital video resolution and higher audio quality due to less compression to make the movie fit, the movie itself saw no changes, it still uses the same master as the VHS release. So take Sonic Adventure 2 Battle again, that's an enhanced port because it just brings over the same game using most of the same assets from the Dreamcast version, a bit of content was added but very little is touched up, and most importantly in defining a remaster, every asset that was compressed on the Dreamcast release is also compressed in Battle, even in the 2012 PC port, by which time, tech could absolutely fit all uncompressed textures, music, and video files in a suitably sized space. It can run at widescreen, and it can run at a higher resolution, and it can run at super high frame rates, but that's just because monitors and computing power have improved, the game itself is 99% unchanged. This would be your DVD release of an 80s movie. As for an actual remaster of a game, I can't think of many other than maybe the Kingdom Hearts x.x releases, like how Dream Drop Distance's assets were way less compressed on PS4 compared to the original 3DS version. A remaster requires going back to the source files and recompiling them into a playable build with little or no compression. A simple task, but the issue is that until about the mid 2000s, very few publishers held on to their games' source code and files. Much like how the BBC and many film studios did things by throwing out tapes or reels or intentionally destroying them to make space, companies like Squaresoft just didn't hold on to much, if anything, used as the source of a game. That's why Kingdom Hearts Final Mix HD had to be almost entirely rebuilt from the ground up, just eyeballing the retail PS2 version.

I have a big issue with the remake vs reimagining discussion... It creates a perception i think is bad. So many consider Re2, 3, and now Re4 as the gold standard for "Remakes" They've kinda changed the game of what a "remake" is. And i think this is kinda not a good thing. I feel like Last of Us remake got so much backlash because... It was an actual remake, at least mostly. A faithful remake to a fault... But to people now remakes are basically whole new games with so much changed. I feel like as time goes on theres going to be pressure about how to handle a remake. If its not a reimaging its no longer a "remake" to quite a few because Re2 and now Re4 were such critical sucesses. People argued against Dead Space remake being a "remaster" because of this. I feel like it puts unwarranted stress on studios to do something completely new vs something faithful. Or at least, will do so with time. A reimaging is something bold & daring, it should be celeberated. But it shouldn't be the gold standard for what a remake should & could be. I also think remake vs remagining makes people have a stupid flame war over which game is better. Re4 classic vs Re4 (2023) is a fair comparison, but i think we should apperciate both & not disregard either cause one is "too dated" or the other is "not faithful". They're both great games. Celebrate that. (Cut out half the comment in a edit to get rid of fluff)

You are dead on, I personally think that, by your definitions, enhanced ports, and shot-for-shot games are wastes of time. They often betray the artistic integrity and aren't made by the original developers. Sadly as a consequence, it's often those that are preserved into the future leaving the legacy of the original game and its developers forgotten. Preservation of the originals is so important.

There's not really a debate, at least not with most people. The problem is the industry uses the terms inconsistently and they exist more for marketing than anything. This wouldn't be an issue but pedants online insist that these things are more rigidly defined than they actually are. That is where the debate exists. But it's pretty easy to just point out what's really happening and let pedants keep needlessly debating, even though most people couldn't care less.

For the Google Doc... Could you maybe give us the option to choose, I don't know the Game? Because on many Games I can't answer, because I dn't know the games.

Final Fantasy 7 R= Remake Ratchet & Clank ps4= one off reboot Demon Souls PS5 = Remaster Crisis Core & Nier Repilciant = enhanced remaster

Then you have remasters that retain the original code but completely remake the graphics from the ground up with new assets like Halo MCC and CoD MWR.

Or SpongeBob SquarePants battle for bikini bottom rehydrated or epic Mickey Rebrushed?

Simple, Is it the exact same game with no/few/lots of additions? It's a Port Is it made from Scratch regardless of how much shot to shot it is or not? It's a Remake

Remaster - This is the most common category and what most people are usually referring to. Also sometimes called the "HD" version of a game. This is a port of an existing game to a (usually) newer platform which may or may not have improvements made to its presentation. Improvements can be as simple as having a higher resolution/framerate, or as complex as new features, tweaked assets, new lighting effects, etc. Examples: The Last of Us Remastered, Skyrim: Special Edition, GTA V (PS4/XBO), Wind Waker HD, Devil May Cry HD Collection, Darksiders Warmastered and Deathinitive editions. Remake - Arguably the most desirable category. For the most part, a remake is a brand new game that closely adheres to the design and narrative of a previous game, only now created with modern tools (like a modern engine) and techniques. If not entirely created from scratch, generally speaking, the game will contain more new code/assets than old recycled code/assets. These can be a 1:1 or have extensions to story like a Director's Cut. Examples: Shadow of the Colossus PS4, Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy, Resident Evil (Gamecube), Dead Space PS5. Reboot - A brand new game, with new design concepts, that shares only loose ties to the core design concept or existing characters/lore of an ongoing series. Sometimes viewed as a sequel, or prequel, that throws away most of what has been previously established in an interconnected series of games. Narratively and thematically, it often returns to the origin of the series, and sometimes re-uses the same name as the first in a series, though not always. Examples. DmC, Tomb Raider (2013), DOOM (2016), Mortal Kombat (2011). Reimagining - Different from a remake as extreme liberties and deviations are taken to the design and or narrative of the source material. When compared to the original it is usually hard to tell they are meant to be the same game. Examples: Ratchet and Clank (2016), XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Metroid: Samus Returns, Final Fantasy VII Remake (name is misleading and technically a sequel), Resident Evil 2/3, Wild Arms Alter Code f.

2:48 that's why it is so confusing, when even Publisher itself use the wrong terms. I mean why, a Remaster is way less work then what they finally did.

Port: COD 4 on Wii. (Same game but with motion controls.) Enhanced Port: Persona 3 FES. (Extra endgame content and an extra campaign.) Remaster: God of War 3 Remastered. (Same game though and though. But better graphics and framerate.) Shot for Shot: Fire Emlem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia. (Same as the OG at it's core. But with an expanded story and voice acting.) Overhaul: Pokemon Firered/Leafgreen. (Same story but with newer pokemon mechanics and expanded post game.) Remagining: Ratchet & Clank 2016. (Using the setting and ideas of the first game to tell a different take on it.)

Remakes are noce, but they tend to changer things not need like in the re4 remake when it comes to gameplay, as for remastered are supior now that Ai upscaleing as came as far as it has, I'd take remastered over a remake any day when comes to games

The remaster/remake terminology confusion hurt Tactics Ogre pretty hard. The SNES version got a remake on PSP (TO: Let Us Cling Together) ten years after it first released, and then ten years later, Tactics Ogre: Reborn game along. Gaming sites reported it as a remaster, and places like GameFAQs only had one entry for Reborn and LUCT. A lot of fans skipped it because they'd already played LUCT, which was like $15 on PSN while Reborn was $50. Do you really want to pay $35 for better graphics? It became a bit of a point of contention because people who didn't play it couldn't understand why it was better than LUCT (HD graphics aren't that great), and people who had played it weren't really believed if they called it a remake because the coverage treated it as a remaster. The combined GameFAQ forums led to some confusion, too, where players of Reborn would click on FAQs for LUCT, not realizing that none of that information was relevant anymore. Old players who had skipped it but saw the new fans did slowly cave in and give it a try, 8 months later, when they saw things like "So what's the build setup for the special holy dragon who joins you?" (there wasn't a special holy dragon in LUCT). You can tell they're a little sad to have missed out on how things were in November where everyone was playing it and talking to each other happily, though. I still get messages from friends saying "Did you know Reborn wasn't a remaster??" It'd be nice of game studios and journalists adopted a consistent naming scheme.

For me, remasters can be the definitive way to play games I've missed out on from my childhood. Just like the Legend of Zelda: OOT. Remakes can be for better or worse for the target audience, case in point, the Pokémon remakes. Better (HeartGold & SoulSilver) or worse (Brilliant Diamond & Shining Pearl). Then there's reimagining's like Ratchet & Clank (2016). An overall solid experience, but when compared to the OG title, it's pretty bland and unimaginative. In the end, the three Rs are a double-edged sword, they can please some, but displease the others. But it's how they are made that counts to me.

Ratchet 2016 is not even a re-something It’s just a movie tie-in game. I also think resident evil 4 vr is basically a spin-off, it just too similar to resident evil survivor 2 that’s was a arcade fps code veronica. For me it’s like it. Port: the same game just on a different console/pc that’s was released originally. (Sonic Adventure 2, Half Life 2, Bayonetta and Soul Calibur 2) Remaster: a port that’s move to a different next generation console but built from a different engine and have worked a little bit for have polished graphics and features (the gamecube zelda games, the super mario advance games, sonic adventure dx, klonoa collection, all the playstation 2 hd collectors on ps3 and vita). Remake: the same game but built from the ground up, different engine, different graphics, different gameplay and controls but the same story (yakuza kiwami, super mario all stars, the crash and spyro remakes, pac man world remake, 3ds zelda titles and the resident evil games) Reimagined - it’s basically “we going too safe with our next sequel title because our fanboys stuck on a game we made 20-30 years ago” (megaman 9 & 10, every starfox game after the gamecube one, street fighter 4, almost every sonic game between 2010 to 2019, crash bandicoot 4, all the new super mario bros games) Reboot - just rebooting the whole franchise (mortal kombat)

Remasters start from a finished game and perform surgery on it: enhance or replace textures, models, sprites, music, controls, performance, framerate, lighting, etc. A remaster could be minimal (Baldur's Gate 2 Enhanced Edition) or substantial (Ocarina of Time 3D). Either way, the process is the same. Remakes start from nothing and mimic the original game. There is no enhancing or replacing, only creating/mimicking. They go through a standard game development cycle. Theoretically, a remake could be indistinguishable from the original game and still be a remake because of how it was made. For example, Wand of Gamelon Remastered is actually a remake made in Game Maker, but it is almost impossible to tell because it looks identical to the original.

Re-releases are ports (or not even ports but simply updated versions of a game) that don't differ too much from the core game. Can have additional content. Examples: persona 2 duology on psp. Remaster is re-release with improved/changed (nocturne is a downgrade for example) graphics - like resolution, wide-screen, models, lighting, etc. Crash N-Sane Trilogy borders between being remaster and remake due to being build from the ground up, but not really differing from originals in any meaningful way. Same about Kingdom Hearts 1.5+2.5. Remake is clearly different game that follows the same beats of the original - be it story or gameplay. Twin Snakes is an example of it - clearly other game controls and mechanics, other writing and directing were present. Reimagining - same franchise, sometimes has same name, may be a sequel, but so much is reworked that it has barely anything to do with the original in terms of writing and gameplay. Like reboots.

Honestly i feel like the remake/remaster discourse comes from a sense of expectations based on things that came before. You see something like Final Fantasy VIIR do all these crazy things that make for a much different experience from the original Final Fantasy VII. Or Metroid Zero Mission, despite drawing many things from the original NES adds so much more. And then you look at Ocarina of Time 3D or Pokemon Brilliant Diamond/Shining Pearl. And say "Its just the same exact game with better graphics and some QoL enhancements. This isnt a remake, its a remaster." Which just isn't right. Its honestly kind of baffling to me how a lot of people just don't understand what a remaster or a remake is. Port: Same exact game on a different console. There might be some minor enhancements (QoL features at the absolute most.) Remaster: The exact same game running in the exact same engine. Resolution and framerate might be improved, textures touched up, and some QoL features.) Remake: Built from scratch in a new engine. Thats the bare minimum. The more notable remakes go the extra mile in changing up the gameplay ir story to offer a different/improved experience.

in my opinion: Remaster: exact same game with improved graphics for modern platforms. no changes to gameplay mechanics. Remake: has to be rebuilt from the ground up. can include QOL improvements and changes to original gameplay mechanics and/or art styles. Reimagining: takes story and general concept of an original title and makes the gameplay mechanics and experience totally different. can include changes to the story i guess. Port: designed to bring an existing title to 1 specific platform where it was not previously available. RE4 for Oculus 2 is 100% a port in my eyes. The Last Of Us Part II for PC is a port. RE4 Remake is a remake that can appear to be a remaster in some aspects. I didn’t do the google poll bc i don’t know like 70% of the games on it lolllll

I think we should stop using the terms as a singular word and more like terms to describe the elements of the game. Is the game using old assets? Remaster. Is the game using new assets? Remake. Is the game retooling the story? Reimaging Is the game on a newer generation (Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft)? Rereelease Is the game on a new console that it wasn't originally released on (Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft)? Port Either that, or just using the terms all together / just use them interchangeably. Edit: I made the comment before he said basically the same thing in his video. Well, not the exact same; but close enough.

I swear the general audience originally had a good understanding of what the terms meant and then company executives muddied the water cos they only knew Remaster as the new buzzword and used it wrongly for things. I always took remaster to mean working on the original work and refining it. Either by opening the original projects file and working from there or reverse engineering from the final compiled rom of the source code is unavailable. A remake would be starting from scratch and using the original as reference. No code of assets cross over but the idea and design are basically the same. Reimaginings are just a form of remake where they wanted to be a lot looser in remaking the game. RE2make is clearly trying to redo RE2 even if it’s wildly different in how it’s accomplished that. While DmC: Devil May Cry isn’t attempting to redo any DMC game but stray a new series so isn’t a remake in any capacity. Overall take it as the difference between restoring or refurbishing an old house, you may make changes but it’s still the same touched-up house. If you make a new house down the road based on the original house no one would call it a touch-up and the same house cos it’s a new make entirely

I have my own terms to talk about remake and all : Port: simple port,maybe emulated, mostly just bump up resolution HD port (or enhanced port): same as a port, may add elements (new mecanics, new content...) Remaster: same game as before but better graphics (lighting and or models & textures) Remakaster : recreate the original game, may add or change things, a good instance being kirby return to dreamland deluxe Remake: make a new game with the old one as a basis. As you see we have a similar classification, even if I agree not all games can just be put in a box

FF7 Remake was only really called "Remake" for marketing reasons. Its certainty not what it says it is.

It’s kind of annoying at times because it’s almost like people flip a coin as far as what term to use.. For example with the Super Mario RPG thing half were saying remake and the other remaster.. Funny how they call FFVII remake in the title when it’s clearly a reimagining.. I’d have just named it Neo FFVII or something along those lines..

Basically, the remaster remake philosophical argument is alike to the Ship of Theseus. At what finite point does it become disassociated from the original work and become a new work? I do feel like most people call things remakes when I feel they are remasters. A game like Final Fantasy VII Remake is an unarguable example of a remake.

There's nothing faithful about Twin Snakes as a remake compared to MGS1. That is absolutely a reimagining, they have Snake doing backflips off of missiles and other ridiculous ass matrix moves in the game.

Hear me out: Shadow Clone (port) > Variant (enhanced port) > Genetic Augmentation (remaster) > Genetic Clone (shot for shot) > Augmented Clone (overhaul) > Variant Clone (reimagining) > Impostor/Doppelganger (reboot)

Remaster: Same game, new paint. Remake: Rebuilding the game usually from scratch. Reimagining: Remaking the game while changing the game in 1 or more fundamental ways from the original. Story or gameplay.

In my opinion all of this debate can be shrunk down to a metaphor with making a soup: - remaster: you have your 3 day soup but feel like it needs more salt you add it in and its basically the same soup but it tastes better - remake: you have made a soup couple years ago and still have the recipe however you've gained some cooking skills and you make it the same but better in every aspect - reimagining: you take a recipe that you have made before and you want to switch some ingredients or measurements, so you switch tomatoes for paprika or you add more sour cream.

Before even watching this is my opinion on the subject A remake is a game that uses the original and builds upon it, while not throwing out or destroying the legacy of the original. A remaster is the same game with some QOL tweaks and better graphics, but is still overall the same game.

When the line is blurry, I came up with a new word : Remakester. This would be used by games like The Last of Us Part 1, or Crash N-Sane Trilogy. The games are remade from scratch but identically to the original with only graphics remade and small tweaks to enhance the experience overall. Remake is like FF7 Remake or Ratchet & Clank 2016. And Remaster is like Spider-Man PS5, or GoW3R, TLOU Remastered. They are games that are made over the original, even if they add content and tweak graphics, that's the original code that is used, and not made from scratch.

Remakes are for games that are old and have excellent design, but are technically limited and clunky(along with worse visuals) due to to how old they are and the limitations of the hardware of their times. Remasters are for games that weren't technically limited in any way, except for visuals and they just update the textures, maybe the lighting a bit and port them to a new system.

So you're just making things even more complicated... hm..

Increasing frame rate and resolution should not be considered a remastering. A remaster is a change in the sound or image quality of previously created forms.

Xenoblade Chronicles: Definitive Edition was when I noticed terms didn't seem as well defined. Like it reuses assets like the world, but then they made new textures for them, new models for the main characters. Monolith Soft decided not to use the original code because it was so old and archaic by then so they wrote new code using the knowledge they picked up since then and the engine of Torna, the Golden Country. It's a remake because they rewrote the code from scratch and a new engine. But it's also a remaster because they're reusing assets.

Something tells even after this people still dont k ow re 2-4 new are re imaginings.

remaking gen 7 or gen 8 games is just dumb in my opinion can Assassin's creed 3 remaster be considered a remaster as it was released in 2019

The way I see it, personally, is there are two tiers of game re-releases. 1. Remasters: Just the same exact game, but available on new platform and slight technological improvements, like having higher quality textures, or higher screen resolutions. The game itself is identical in terms of its gameplay, visuals (in the sense that it's the same character models, animations, voice lines, level design), and story. Good examples of these would be The Last of Us Remastered, Uncharted The Nathan Drake collection, Marvel's Spider-Man remastered. 2. Remakes: There are changes made to the experience, but they don't apply to all three of the criteria I judge a game by (Gameplay, Visuals, Story). Meaning that the game, might have been remade visually from the ground up, but it still plays the same and has the same story, or maybe the game had made significant changes to its story, but didn't change the visuals and gameplay. A good example of these kinds of remakes, would be The Last of Us Part I, Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy. 3. Reimaginings: Everything is pretty much new and made from the ground up, other than the base concept of the game. The gameplay is different, the story is different, and the visuals are different. Good examples of that would be the Resident Evil remakes, and Final Fantasy 7 remake. I personally don't have a problem with any game getting re-released, regardless of the context and how significant, or insignificant the changes are. But I do take issue with the pricing. I don't think it makes sense to sell a remaster, or (based on my analogy) a remake, for full price. It's clear to me that the Naughty Dog promoted TLOU Part I in the way that they did, to justify the $70 price tag, which with all due respect to the game (it's easily the definitive way to experience the story), is an insane price for what TLOU Part I is.

I think FF7R is essentially a reimagine / reboot / semi-sequel due to time-y wime-y shenanigans

Sonic adventure 2 Battle is more like an enhanced port. Though the enhancement part is questionable.

You know what would be cool? Nightdive Studios remasters of SA1 and 2.

Why you didnt play Final Fantasy VII Remake yet? Its easily one of the best games ever made

I think it’s pretty clear but definition alone, reMASTER is taking the master and updating it for modern purposes but it’s still the same at its core, where as a reMAKE is building it again entirely from scratch with completely new changes

The fact that you don't mention anything about the faults of sa1dx and sa2b is weird to me.

Opera is owned by a Chinese company which had suspicious history so I recommend don't use it.

I never knew I needed the answer, but I shall now use your definition from here on. Thank you lmao

Personally id just think of the 3 in a story telling aspect. If you're remastering a story, you've already completed the story everyone loves, but you got better at your story telling skills so youre able to go into details on events that already existed in there to immerse your audience. If you're remaking a story, you're taking a well known story and adding events that you might have missed like "oh, i knew i forgot something that happened in between this time skip. . .! " something that shows whats happening behind the scenes or in between the story while still trying to be faithful to the original story. When reimagining the story, you're taking a well known story that everyone knows and loves and flipping it your own way to try and reinvent the wheel. Have a setting in a booming city dystopia? Change it to a very cyberpunk or steampunk esque environment. Have a girl trying to clear her sisters name after being framed as a bad guy? Have the sister actually be a bad guy and try to save her from herself and her manipulation by the people she serves.

Why do you think ff7 remake is a sequal when its more like reimagining and stuff like that

Just call it port vs remaster. Port get to the point and doesn't cause great confusion.

They all have one thing in common: Lazy, unoriginal, cash grabs.

3:38 woow and that Game s the worst Reimagineing Iexisting.

I personally believe a VR version of a game is either a remake or a whole new game depending on how much they change.

It's kinda strange that nobody thought 64 DS was a reimagining.

For the Crash and Spyro trilogies I just call them a Remaster Plus

Which category is mass effect legendary edition

I wish more Remakes included the Original like Metroid Zero Mission. Or even better the Wonderboy III Remake that lets you switch between the old and new versions on the fly. I thought that was super cool and more remakes should do that. Either that or do something vastly different. While im a huge Spyro and Crash Fan the remakes now seem a bit unnecessary to me. I have no reason to play them over the original except for the graphics but I prefer the PS1 Aesthethic so that isn't even an argument for me. I wish they included much more new stuff

ocarina of time 3d is undoubtedly a remake it doesn't need to change major parts of the game to be considered one it is quite literally and simply ocarina of time "remade" for the Nintendo 3ds

I personally don't have the highest standards in remasters or remakes just being functional and added some quality but the most important part is accecability and if the console have gimmick so it won't be too much tacked on in some instances

Didn't this video come out a while ago? What's going on?

Hey J I know this is off topic but will you review xbox exclusives like Halo at some point I know you are more of a Playstation guy but I always wanted to see you review the Halo series and most of the Halo games are available for Pc anyways so if you don't want to buy an xbox you can play them on pc A response (negative or affirmative) would be much appreciated