Because nothing is left to interpretation and is consistent. Unlike the one you and Shiken are throwing around.

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.

Haven't heard of those movies. 

Surely remake literally means to redo, to do again. But I'm twisting the definition to fit better the gaming context, to make it more akin to reimaginig. There are three categories of rerelease if you ask me: a plain rerelease,where you release again a game in the exact same state it was before, a remaster, in which you upgrade visuals and add minor adjustments, and a remake, where you explore an original work and make a new take on it. 

The boundaries for what is a remake and a remaster are very fragile, but are firm enough to determine that Resident Evil 3 2020 is a remake and Xenoblade DE is a remaster. 

Sure.  That's a valid point, assuming we can always tell whether or not the same source code is used.   But while focusing only on one factor makes things easier, it makes classification systems less useful.

For example, when we're dealing with animals, we classify using multiple traits.  Some traits of mammals are that they have fur, that they produce milk, and that they give birth to live children.

Now, let's take the platypus as an example.  If we decided to focus solely on one factor, does it give birth to live offspring, we would say, no not a mammal.  Nothing would be left to interpretation and perfectly consistent.

On the other hand, if we take all the factors into account, then we can classify the platypus as a mammal.  It's less consistent (there is still debate over how to classify the platypus) but it allows us the ability to take more factors into consideration and put the platypus where it makes most sense, because it shares more traits with mammals then it does not.

We can think of Xenoblade Remastered as a platypus.  It has one factor in common with FFVII remastered.  Same source code as the original (I'm assuming).  But, it has other factors that are more in common with other remakes like Link's Awakening.  Added content, new artstyle, new music, mostly new assets, etc.  I think a classification system that incorporates these factors is preferable to one that does not.

If you want consistency to be the be all end all, then your system is clearly better.  I'd argue that categorizing things that are more similar together is much more important, and I think Shiken's definition does a way better job of that.  

I thought after finishing Final Fantasy VII Remake that I'd be done with the game, so I sold it. A week later I regretted selling it because I wanted to play it again xD so I went and bought the collectors edition for 300 euro lol. So what im trying to say is, i pick Final fantasy vii remake :D

I haven't played trails of mana but i do own it, and have watched my gf playing it. She's already put it down due to finding it rather boring.

You feel you think it's "better" because you and Shiken want to see XCDE as a remake, not a remaster. For whatever reason.

But ok, let's agree to disagree. 

I'm looking forward to that remaster regardless of how you or anyone else categorize it.

Errrrrr... I just gave you a pretty detailed reasoning for why I think it's a better system.  Because it allows us to group it with other games with which it shares more similarities in terms of how it compares to the source material.  We can agree to disagree, but it's honestly kind of frustrating to take the time to explain myself and then be told that I just think that way based on some bizarre agenda.

I was frustrated earlier when you dismissed my explanation as "not apt" because you seemingly refused to look at the big picture I was illustrating.

If I applied your reasoning, I would say XCDE (species) is a video game (kingdom), a Switch product (family), and a remaster (genus). Or something along those lines.

I mean... I tried my best to understand it.  I rephrased it, and asked if I had it right, and asked you to clarify if I had it wrong.  Whether you believe me or not, I was trying my best to understand what you were saying, and just didn't think the analogy worked.  If you can say you were honestly giving me the same courtesy, I'll accept that.  

I edited my reply to you, but I will copy-paste what I added here:

If I applied your reasoning, I would say XCDE (species) is a video game (kingdom), a Switch product (family), and a remaster (genus). Or something along those lines.