Remasters, Remakes, and Ports.....

[Nem]

Michelasso said:

Nem said:

Remaster isnt a thing. Thats a fancy term they came up with to sell you the game. A remaster is a port. Like, no one was calling the DC version of MK4 and Soul Reaver "remasters" even though they were clearly superior to the PS1 counterparts.

Wrong. You can have a port without having a remaster. Take "Oddworld: New 'n' Tasty!". It has been first (re)made (because it is a remake) for PS4 and then ported to PS3 at a lower resolution. Or FF VII for iOS. It's a port of the Steam version for PC, the graphics assets should be identical. Another good example is Dark Souls for PC. It was basically the same game, even at the same resolution. It was even still stuttering in Blighttown . It needed a mod to go above 720p30fps.

In order to have a remaster there is the need to have some assets... remastered indeed. Starting with the graphics. FF VII is a good example because technically the Steam version has been remastered. The problem is that it has been one of the crappiest remasters ever. If it was properly done the remaster itself could have been close to the "remake" the nostalgic of turn based combat were dreaming of.

Hopefully SE is fixing that on the PS4 version. 

Wrong to your wrong.  You can have a port that isnt a remaster, its still called a port. A remaster is a port aswell. Theres no distinsction besides the one fed to us this gen to make it look like more than what it is.

You cannot have a term for these enhanced ports that isnt retroactive. The port of Soul Reaver for DC had better textures, more poly's. But, no one remembered to call it a remaster back then. It was a port. Just like today's "remasters" are ports aswell. Ports can go both ways in terms of quality, but what keeps them together as one term is the fact that its the same game touched up or down to fit a different system.

Remaster is a clever term invented by the marketing department to boost the perception of the value of the title and get your money. :)