Well i might be wrong, i dont know...

I dont really know the definition of both, so i obviously just took a guess!

This... obviously. A remake would entail far greater changes and additional content.

Exactly. Also isn't a remake supposed to be a new game? And not just the same one with better resolution?

Question!
Is Super Mario 64 DS a remake or a remaster?
It had a lot of new content, so i guess a remake?
Just trying to understand the difference here.

Remaster, game code is the same. Some animations have been shortened and a quest scaled down, that doesn't make a remake.

A remake would be Tombraider Aniversary.

Halo Combat evolved Anniversary is both I guess, new graphics engine programmed on top of the old one, yet the game logic is all exactly the same "Saber decided to use its game engine for reproducing the original's appearance and the original Halo's engine for gameplay. A development tool for toggling between the old and new visuals became a game feature."

Wind Waker is a remaster. They didn't remake the graphics. They upscaled the polygonal assets, but didn't add more polygons. Redid a few things here and there like the HUD icons, and used an improved lighting technique. They tweaked some elements to improve the controls. But most of the game code remained carried over from the original. To the point where the glitches present in the original are still there. Even the animations are the exact same and they run at the same frame rate.

A remake is something like Resident Evil on the GameCube. Everything was remade. Not just updated and upscaled.

There lies the problem. Wat games are exactly a "Remake"? The only games that i can think of that are true "Remakes are...

Pokemon ⇒ FireRed/Leafgreen + Heartgold/Soulsilver and the upcoming OmegaRuby/AlphaSapphire!

Super Mario 64 DS

Edit: Tomb Raider (ps3/x360) + Kirby Nightmare in Dreamland + Metroid Zero Mission

The wikipedia has it listed as a remake but I agree that it's more or less a remaster rather than a remake.

I don't think either term fully fits, the game sits somewhere in between. I'd say it's more accurately either a well done remaster or a cheap remake.

All they really did was upgrade the texture quality, add a much better lighting engine, repeatedly smash the bloom button and render it in 1080p. There are also some slight model and artistic changes, but for the most part the in-game geometry is identical to the original. It's somewhat a testament to how well the original has aged that these changes allow WWHD to look almost as good as many new WiiU titles.

Were it simply a texture/resolution upgrade (as seen below) we would all agree it was a remaster. The improved lighting and artistic changes do make it stand out as a bigger improvement than many remasters, but i wouldn't say by enough to justify the term "remake".

WW HD textures:


WWHD WiiU:

Resident Evil 2 for Gamecube wasn't much of a remaster, though.  I'd classify it more as a port.

Otherwise, I'd have to agree.  Resident Evil on GC is the perfect example of a true remake.  Despite some additions (mostly in the control department) Wind Waker HD is much closer to a remaster.