| Metallox said: If the work has the same layout or scenarios as the original, but better visuals and minor tweaks to the original gameplay; it's a remaster. If it has different structure or different kind of gameplay than that of the original, it's a remake. Those are my two cents. How different must the stuff or gameplay need to be to qualify as a remake, that I don't know. For example, Xenoblade DE introduces a new way to deal with the side quests compared to the original, which in turn results in a different way to approach a significant portion of the game. Is that kind of stuff enough to qualify it as a remake? |
Do you consider Psycho 1998 a remaster of the 1960 film of the same name? Shot for shot they are exactly the same. Just new sets and new actors. It's a remake. Xenoblade uses a new code. New engine. New assets. It was quite literally remade in the definition of the word. Uses new art tho. All this confusion started in the 7th gen when remasters were marketed as remakes. Even tho they were just ports of PS2 games cleaned up for HD consoles. A remaster. Same thing when an old movie is remastered for HD. FFVII R is not a remake but further confused the term by using it. You can debate reboot/reimagining term but either one is more fitting than a remake.
You cannot take marketing as gospel. If we did then every single game ever made the last 15 years is innovative and "cinematic" when they themselves don't even know what cinematic means. It's a nothing term that changes definition by those who use it. Sadly that's happened with terms that had definitive definitions before all this BS. Sure a remaster can add new features but the game is still the same assets just cleaned up. There is also this misconception a remake has to look better. See FFVI on Mobile or FFXV Pocket edition. A remake is just that. A game or work remade with new assets even if they closely resemble the older film or game.
Bite my shiny metal cockpit!
