HD Remakes or Remastered?

[SpaceBooger]

Do you consider the HD versions of old games, i.e. Sly Cooper Collection, Shadow of the Colossus, and the new FFVII and Nights games remakes, remastered, or upgraded?

When I think of "remake" I think of a whole new game. When I think "remastered" I think tweeks and in HD, so I would consider these games remastered even though they were remade for different hardware.

[Nemoide]

Really neither of the terms really fits. A remake implies it was newly developed from scratch. Remastering is a term from film/music where you take the original master copy and make a new master copy, generally using better technology to improve the quality. Since HD versions of the games typically use new elements (HD textures, new character models), I don't think they could technically be called a remastered version.

But really, it's the semantic splitting of hairs. I just call them the "HD versions." If someone called them remakes or remasters and I knew what they were talking about, I'm not going to argue with their use of the terms.

[hashiriya1]

FYI, the FFVII rerelease is not an HD 'remaster'. From what I've seen it's the same old game now available for PC download.

[brunoafh]

Well it depends on what the release in question in. If it's one of the PS3/360 HD compilations I just see it as a remaster. MGS, DMC, Sly, Splinter Cell, Silent Hill, Ico/SotC, etc. But even here "remasters" can fall on their face and omit content or even end up straight up worse. Stuff like these fighters (Street Fighter II and III, MvC, Neo Geo fighters) that are being re-released on PSN with online capability kind of skate in-between. Although not really a remake or a remaster, they offer a very valuable new feature: on-line play, as well as tuned up sprites and backgrounds.

A remake for me is a completely new take on a previously existing game, for better or for worse (which boils down to opinion anyway). Like MGS Twin Snakes, REmake, various Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest remakes. Sometimes a remake will be freaking awesome (REmake), polarizing (Twin Snakes), or just shit (FF III & IV DS, my opinion).

Then there are "enhanced" ports (which can go either way), games that are basically the same but count as more than a re-release by adding new content even if they falter in some areas. Various RE games across Nintendo platforms, Valkyrie Profile Lenneth, No More Heroes Paradise, Viewtiful Joe games on Sony consoles... tons of stuff that I can't think of at the moment.

Unfortunately, I'm generally a sucker for all of them, unless it's a botched re-whatever like the Silent Hill collection.

[isiolia]

FYI, the FFVII rerelease is not an HD 'remaster'. From what I've seen it's the same old game now available for PC download.

Well, it's able to run on modern systems, which is an improvement on the original release

If it can render at higher resolutions, it might well qualify, at least compared to the PSX version. We'll have to see. Not like there aren't a boatload of mods out there to fill in if SE doesn't do it officially.


I usually just consider them "remasters". It might not be entirely true to the term, but I don't think most games are entirely redoing assets. As evidenced by emulation (such as here or here, many older 3D titles can be made to look far better simply by utilizing higher resolutions and filtering. Some elements get updated, but I think they keep as many as are practical, true enough to the spirit of "remastering".

I wouldn't call 'em remakes - not that there aren't, like Goldeneye for the Wii, or Metroid Zero Mission, and so on, but most are aiming for the same general experience, just not as jaggy.

[CRTGAMER]

I think the term is moot as long as the buyer knows that the games are higher resolution upgrades of the same game.

Advantage - Higher Resolution and better Frame Rate. Content might be added.

Disadvantage - Limited Retro controller support (PS1/PS2 has tons of controllers) and no Action Replay. Content might be removed.

[BoringSupreez]

One thing to consider is that while there's people who will complain about both, Remasters generally generate fewer complaints as they leave the core game alone. Remakes, by definition, make changes, and there's always people who are gonna prefer the original no matter how good the remake is.

[Cronozilla]

I think specifically with Sly Cooper Collection, that is maybe the pinnacle of this process. It's a legit remastering and even re-authoring of those games. It looks entirely updated. They're not really using any of the original art assets.

And in the world of software, if you want to differentiate based on which code base is being used for what ... that's just not a good stance. A lot of older games being put on PSN and Live for example ... don't use any of the original code, they've actually been re-written from the ground up through reverse engineering because it's easier than translating from one platform to another. (You'd have to re-write it anyway).

So they just take the final product ... and try to reproduce it on a new platform and maybe they change things here and there. (this is, for example, what they did with Shadow of the Colossus)

Normally what they do after that is, bring over the original art assets and tweak those so they'll work better or look better or whatever. Sometimes, as in the case of the Sly Collection, they'll just outright replace most everything.

So ... technically ... these things are actually from the ground up remakes. It's just ... they're so close to the original people think they're just simply "ports" ... which for some reason people boil down to "not a lot of work" ... porting is generally more difficult than re-creating, just to be clear.

(Video games aren't good software so it's all very specific and sort of smashed into place to work in that one instance ... moving it between hardware environments, as a result, is a nightmare)

Anyway ... from a gamer perspective, I think calling them remastering is perfectly fine. As that's sort of the goal. It's just like (eek) the Star Wars remastering where they enhanced the film quality and tried to fix problems ... now they went too far ... but it's the same idea. Let's take this great game move it over for higher resolution better image quality and smoother gameplay and ... that's essentially a game remastering.

Also consider that the root of remaster is in audio productions and it's definition is:

Make a new master of (a recording), typically in order to improve the sound quality.

It's the same idea. So, remaster is likely the right word. It's making a new root copy of something (or base) of an old game where the idea is to improve various aspects of the game.

If they were remakes ... they wouldn't be the same game. Sly Cooper vs Sly Cooper HD is a remastering ... where as, Metroid vs. Zero Mission is a complete remake with new content and mechanics and the like.

That's how I see this stuff, anyway. Although ... it kind of makes you think ... if they're putting so much effort in getting the core engine and mechanics running ... why wouldn't they put a little extra time in to really revamp the visuals too? Because they absolutely can ... but artists are likely more expensive than programmers in most situations.

[Gamerforlife]

Well it depends on what the release in question in. If it's one of the PS3/360 HD compilations I just see it as a remaster. MGS, DMC, Sly, Splinter Cell, Silent Hill, Ico/SotC, etc. But even here "remasters" can fall on their face and omit content or even end up straight up worse.

I was pissed when I completed all of the Master Thief sprints in Sly Cooper 1 in the Sly Collection, only to discover that they REMOVED the developer commentaries that those unlocked in the original PS 2 version.

PISSED!!!

That's like buying a special edition re-release of a movie on DVD or Blu Ray and finding out that they REMOVED the commentary tracks. WTF!?

[Xeogred]

One thing to consider is that while there's people who will complain about both, Remasters generally generate fewer complaints as they leave the core game alone. Remakes, by definition, make changes, and there's always people who are gonna prefer the original no matter how good the remake is.

Funny way to look at it. Very true.

I still think Zero Mission is one of the best remakes out there.

Anyways, everyone else pretty much summed up my thoughts. Remake = full redux, and for HD "upgrades" or whatever I just look at them as remasters/ports.