What percentage of the project do you think amounts to “the rest”?

I will take the example of the characters’ polygonal models. They are the same as in the original, except for the hands and faces. This is made obvious right away when you watch any footage that compares both versions. 

The director said that they had constraints due to the project being a remaster. So for me, the case is closed.

What the director says is not absolute. It has to make sense. Obviously if he says 2+2 is 73 he is talking nonesense.

The Zelda timeline at times seems right, and at others seems forced. I would say they never really intended to connect all games, but they thought it would be cool to do it and they rolled with it. But to be fair, that is a very different situation than the one with Xenoblade. Nintendo can benefit from creating a timeline in different ways and Aonuma trying to keep the lie going makes sense. 

But why would Takahashi lie on this? What does he gain by saying this game is a remaster instead of a remake? I think he's just calling the game what he thinks he is, no more no less. And since he is the maximum authority on the matter, I see no reason to not believe him. Especially since everything else from footage to journalists to information provided by Nintendo points to the game being a remaster. 

As for SotC... I already said that to me what a business man says about the insides of gaming means nothing. Yoshida saying SotC is a remake means nothing to me.

But they are not the same.  If you look at side by side comparisons, the new models have been completely redone.  The hair has changed to better fit the style in XBC2 as well.  Just because something was remade to look the same does not mean that it was not remade.

It is not just character models as well, but special effects, terrain, the way the grass is rendered, etc.  Everything has been remade beyond the point of what you would find in a remaster.

This is why even at sub HD, XB:DE still looks fresher and more up to snuff than an actual HD remaster of the original game would look at 1080p, where all the assets remained the same. 

A very respectable response.

My response to that is basically what you just said.  What a director says is not absolute and must make sense.  To me and many others, when the majority of a game is remade with new assets and effects, it does not make sense to call it a remaster.  The majority has been remade, and therefore it should be called a remake.  Much like the lable does not matter to you, it does not matter to me for the same reason.

I understand your's and Hynads reason for calling it a remaster.  I just do not agree with it, or your definition of one.  This whole remake culture has fueled a lot of talk over what a remake truly is, because there is no concrete definition available.  It is all up for interpretation.

To me, the game is a remake based on the definition and reasons I have stated.  Nothing you say can change that fact.  If you interpret it differently, do not come at me and call my definition wrong.  Both sides have been in the wrong here at one point or another.

- Except it's an objective that XBC is bigger than BOTW this is something you can't even argue it's an objective fact what is bigger 30km squared or 23km squared. BOTW doesn't have more going on at a time it allows for more possible interactions so the player themselves can create different scenarios themselves that's a different approach entirely you as the player have more mechanics at your fingertip and you play around with them sandbox style however it's only the player causing this not anything else in the game that's a different concept entirely otherwise the game wouldn't be able to run as the physics engine would require an insane amount of calculations from the hardware.

In terms of whats happening at a time XBC has more going on having more enemies and npcs alone increases the workload significantly as more calculations and such are needed by both the CPU and GPU want an example RE3 remake had to lower the quality of the Zombie models to get the game to run on consoles because the game has more of them active at a time hence why they couldn't be dismembered like in RE2, this is because the are more assets to manage under everything else. XBCR is also using better quality assets than what BOTW used while doing all this.

- The number of monsters in XBC is more than the number all you mentioned in BOTW by miles and they have more diversity not a good argument as BOTW is not even close to the total, XBC has 768 while BOTW has 128, the Witcher 3 in comparison has 80 but the assets are much higher quality.

- Saying XBCX is bigger also doesn't mean it requires more power when the assets in the remake are above the quality of those in the former from textures, models, animations etc... That's before we get to updated effects and all.

- Nothing to tell me you're the one contradicting yourself as it was you who prior started the whole the company says it's a remaster (what's funny is that was the publisher as well which contradicts your reply here) with another game then SOTC was pointed out as a counter now you're back peddling on that again. Considering Sony is the owner and green lit the project as a remake that falls under the stance you're using here but back then you didn't accept it so as a result you can't really use the argument as an objective here if you refused it as objective back then.

I did point out they redid the faces and hands. The rest of the character models, nope. They retained their exact same "blockiness" from the original, with cleaned out and/or improved texturing.

The maker of the game says it is a remaster. Says that by the nature of being such, it brought constraints. No amount of arguing and denial from you or anybody else here will disprove him. 

You know what? You guys are right. If I really believe it doesn't matter what the game is to enjoy it, let's put the debate to rest.

Shall we all agree that remaster or remake, the game it's gonna be amazing? Some will call it remaster, some will call it remake. But we all will be refering to the same great game that improves a lot of aspects of the original game.

I'm not gonna try to argue with anyone who says the game it's a remake anymore. Promised. But I hope the same goes for the other side too. Because we all know there are reasons and arguments to call it in one way or another.

It would be nice to come to this thread to talk about the game instead of the same 3 people bickering about the words remaster and remake endlessly.

The director may have his own definition of what a remaster or remake is.  That does not mean it is right.  Not to mention you are going off of a translation which has proven in the past to not be 100% accurate.  In either case, his word is not absolute.

I am going off of what the game is, mostly remade on a large scale.  But if your definition of a remake differs, I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I cannot say you are wrong anymore than you can say I am.  To me, when most of the game is new assets and remade it is a remake.  To you, any form of code remaining from the original makes it a remaster.  There is no real definition out there as to which interpretation is correct, so all we can do is respectfully bow out of the conversation.  We will only talk circles at this point, and that gets us nowhere.

Could someone please tell this guy that he's wrong in most of what he said? He just won't listen...