Talking Point: 'Remake' Vs. 'Remaster' - What's Your Definition?

Remaster = updated graphics, new quality of life improvements, minimal new content.
Examples: Super Mario RPG, Paper Mario Thousand Year Door, Link's Awakening, Tomb Raider I - III Remastered

Remake = a total reinvention of gameplay style experience, reinvented gameplay mechanics (usually brought to modern standards), expansive new content and/or changes to story beats.
Examples: Final Fantasy VII Remake, Resident Evil 3, Metal Gear Solid: Twin Snakes, Tomb Raider Anniversary

In my head...

Remaster = original source code, engine etc. running on modern hardware. Content may be updated but not required. E.g., 4K textures.* Low variability.
Remake = Same core content but remade in a new engine, new code. May include new or modified content but not at requirement* Mid variability.
Reboot = Same universe, no constraints on tech (could be old or new tech); will* include new content and/or different content. Large variability.

*Clarifications

My definition of Remaster & Remake :

Remaster = Upgrade the graphic become better, added with new features, everything still look same as the old version.
Example: FF X/X-2, FF XII TZA, Ratchet & Clank HD Trilogy PS3, Sly Cooper Trilogy PS3, Miitopia Switch version, Go Vacation Switch version.

Remake = Built completely new but still maintain the same thing from old version.
Example: Ratchet & Clank PS4, FF 3 NDS, FF 4 NDS,

To me, remakes tend to necessitate some major aspects of the game being remade to be classed as such. This could be remade character models and an all new artstyle such as with Xenoblade Definitive Edition, or a much more blatant one to one recreation like with the Dead Space remake a while back. Remasters meanwhile typically mean updated graphics, in most cases a simple upres to HD - so games such as Skyward Sword HD, Baten Kaitos 1+2, etc, come under that umbrella to me. Additional quality of life features or such would also make the game fall under this term for me. Games that are ported more or less with little to no significant changes are just ports. Of course, lots of games skirt the lines heavily for all three of these terms.

Then for games that completely re-envision an older title (Final Fantasy 7 Remake series, the Resident Evil remakes), those are simply brand new games. They are so significantly different from the source game mechanically that I can't really see them as a "remake" - they utilise the same story and themes etc., but its a brand new title otherwise.

Remaster - original but with improved fidelity. It might have new graphics or textures, simply be 4K or whathave you. It could even have extra content (like deleted scenes.) Or more modern controls.

Remake - I tend to think different actors. So it's remade like the article says, from the ground up. Now it might be very faithful to the point of it looking like a remaster. But, it's still a remake.

@LadyCharlie Pretty much the same conclusions I came to on the matter. At the end of the day, it's a silly discussion.As long as the game maintains its fun.

A remaster is generally a revision of a game or something that adds things such as quality-of-life features, and maybe some other changes if it is brought to a different console or something (e.g. Wind Waker HD. It changed a few things, such as items and other minor things, mainly because the Wii U is so different from the GameCube: you can't plug in a GBA or something with an extra screen to really do with what you pleased with Tingle, so I guess Nintendo's solution was to give you a better sail or whatever it was he gave you.).
Remakes are generally full blown, redone versions of a thing (In this case, a game) using the original as a base. one would usually add many new features of sorts, 100% better graphics, and all the stuff you would usually see in a Remake. Like Remasters, they would definitely change some aspects for the changing times and culture.

So, for short:
Remaster=(technically) new version, adding quality-of-life features and some other minor changes,
Remakes=Often full-blown revisions, adding completely new things, mechanics sometimes, and adding quality-of-life features too.

there are remasters and there are bare bones remasters...

For me a remaster is you take the original game and make improvements upon it such as better visuals. Add some nice little quality of life changes to streamline things and maybe increase the framerate. At the end of the day it's still the same game from before but with some improvements.

Zelda WW HD, Twilight Princess HD and Skyward Sword HD all fit under this category. Same with all the HD Final Fantasy games, at it's core it's still the same game.

A remake is a total revamp. Models are built from the ground up, new story elements are added, additional gameplay mechanics and changes made to the core gameplay. But obviously remakes can also remain very faithful to the originals.

Persona 3 Reload, Fire Emblem Echoes, Resident Evil 2 Remake are all great examples of remakes in the modern era.

I like to use this system:

Remaster= Twilight princess HD, Skyward Sword HD, Final Fantasy X HD, Chrono Cross: The Radical Dreamers Edition,

Remaster+ = Xenoblade Chroniles HD, Metroid Prime Remastered, Wind Waker HD, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, Ace Attorney trilogy, Resident evil 1 HD remaster, GTA trilogy.

Remake- = Super Mario RPG, Zelda Link awaking, Demon's Souls, Shadow of the Colossus, Mario vs. Donkey Kong, The last of us Part 1.

Remake+ = Resident evil 2 remake, Yakuza Kiwami, Resident evil 4 remake, Persona 3 Reload.

Here's my stand on this subject

HD Remaster - The same game but upscaled to HD and can have some small enhancements. Examples Include; Devil May Cry HD Collection, Zelda Wind Waker/Twilight Princess/Skyward Sword HD, and Dragonball Z Budokai HD Collection.

Remaster - It's the original game but all the assets have been remade and some areas have received touch ups. Examples include; Crash Bandicoot N Sane Trilogy, Final Fantasy 7 Crisis Core Reunion, Metroid Prime Remastered, and Xenoblade Chronicles 1 Definitive Edition.

Remake - Base Concepts (Characters and World) are taken but it's pretty much treated as a new game. The story, while can follow the original to an extend, tends to cut loose and tries new ideas. Obvious examples here are Final Fantasy 7 Remake, Pokemon Remakes, and Fire Emblem Echoes Shadows of Valentia.

I think the problem with this particular subject is everyone has a cut-off point. Many people would consider Super Mario RPG a remake but personally I would count that as a remaster since it's the same as the original but all the assets are remade. It's kinda leaning towards the remake category but to me because it's following the original closely it doesn't get placed on the same level as let's say Final Fantasy 7 Remake.

a remake is when they make a game again. re-make. it is a generic term.

a remaster is when they make the exact same game again, with better graphics and sound.

a reBOOT is when they start up a series with a new original entry, especially if the intention is to start a new series from this new game.

an enhanced port is when an existing game is ported to a new platform with special new features specific to that platform.

PS - "It's easy to get into a semantic argument, even if you've got clear in your mind the difference between a standard port, an enhanced port, a remaster, or a full-on remake."

Not to be pedantic about semantics, but I think you mean pedantic argument, not semantic, as semantic literally means "relating to the meaning of words." 😊 This whole article is strictly semantic, and that's just fine! 👍

@NCChris

cant a game be a remake AND a remaster? in my mind, the first is an umbrella term, and the second has a specific meaning. the remade it when they remastered it 👍

ff7 remake I consider an extreme example of an enhanced port, in the spirit of the golden era when companies (especially Capcom, in my mind) would make essentially a brand new game in the spirit of an arcade game, but taking advantage of the nature and relative strengths (and often weaknesses) of the home console in question. read: Bionic Commando, UN squadron, or even DK94 ✌️

I read the word remaster too much, now it sounds weird to me.

Okay, I hate to be a stick in the mud, but this kind of debate is hopeless. In general debates about the exact boundaries or terms and concepts like this are pointless because no matter what gets said, no matter how plausible the proposed definition, there is a tacit project of hunting out edge-case games that defy the definition. I studied painting and in painting g there is a lot of these kinds of debates. What is the exact difference between Impressionism and post-Impressionism and fauvism and expressionism? And expressionism includes Abstract expressionism right? And Ab-Ex includes color field and color field looks pretty similar to minimalism but minimalism is the opposite of expressionism!?! Or was it actually process-oriented conceptual art the entire time!?!? And on and on forever.

The real truth I think is that these are marketing labels. I feel like at some point someone labeled their game a remake and then some one else labeled their game a remaster and somehow everyone got confused and thought these were specific concepts that actually meant something. In fact, they don’t have particular meaning and are essentially interchangeable. That’s my 2 cents.

@Ronaldore

earlier I couldnt stop staring at the word "FOOD."

FOOOOOOOD.

@-wc- I get what you're saying but I think when people say "remake" they don't mean it in the literal sense of how they are remaking it by remastering it. They are saying it in the sense of how the new game is how it's presented, not the physical man-handling of remaking it.

I mean heck, if we are gonna count it that way, wouldn't that mean all HD Remasters are called remakes?

How can this even be up for debate? If the words are so clear.
Remake is when you are making something anew. Think the Resident Evil remakes.
Remaster is when you take the original files and master them to make it feel more modern like 16x9 and less compressed audio and textures. Like the Red Dead Redemption remaster.
There are some remasters that have to remake things because they're lost media like the Silent Hill or FFX remasters.
And there are some remakes that keep something from the original game, like Xenoblade DE's original dialogues.

@PcTV "How can this even be up for debate? If the words are so clear."

Except...it's not as simple as you're saying it is. Subjectivity plays a major role in this subject which is why it's often discussed.

I dont even really understand why there's a debate around this subject at all. The difference between a remake and a remaster is fairly obvious.

Remake = remade from the ground up

Remaster = updated using original assets

Going any deeper than that is just getting lost in the weeds imo. I see people say that only the Final Fantasy 7 Remake is a "true" remake. Or that the Resident Evil 2 Remake is a "true" remake but those are arguably completely different games. If every remake had to be that extensive then practically every modern remake couldn't be considered a remake. Idk. This entire discourse is quite baffling to me. It's like video game genres, for some reason no one can seem to agree on what genre anything is. Lol

id like to point out that if you simply borrow the way the terms are used in film and music, it's quite clear what the differences are.

when they "remaster" an album or film, they make it sound better and look better without changing the content. you wouldnt know its been changed otherwise.

when they reboot a film franchise, its a new film with generally new actors, new special fx, new music.

when they "enchanced port" a film, you get Greedo shooting first 😂

@NCChris

well, yeah i see what you mean. "remake" is too vague for specific usage, i guess is what im saying. there are better words in all cases.

@-wc- This I definitely agree on, remake honestly isn't the best word for specifics but since that's what the industry and it's customers have settled on, it's sadly too late to change it.

But to be honest, even though I chimed in on this, it is honestly not a big deal. If the game is good and packed with content, all these labels really shouldn't matter.

@NCChris

i agree with you, but OTOH i love semantics! 😂✌️
cheers.

I don't care as long as it's a new game to play.

Here's my extended terminology:

Emulated ROM:
Unmodified or slightly modified games from past systems running on an emulator.
Examples: Castlevania Advance Collection, Super Mario 3D All-Stars, Mega Man Legacy Collection,

Port (or enhanced port):
A game from an older system that has been reworked to run on the newer system, but for the most part runs the same as the original.
Examples: Pikmin 1+2, Tales of Symphonia Remastered (ironically), New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe

Remaster:
A game from an older system that has been significantly altered visually or QOL-wise, but for the most part runs the same as the original.
Examples: Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive Edition, Metroid Prime Remastered, Kirby's Return to Dream Land Deluxe

Remake:
A game from an older system that has been rebuilt entirely from scratch, done faithfully enough to the original to be considered (mostly) the "same game" as the original.
Examples: Paper Mario The Thousand Year Door, Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters, Live A Live, Link's Awakening

Actually just a new game:
A game loosely based on a previous game, but should not be considered the same thing.
Examples: Final Fantasy VII Remake (ironically), Pokémon Let's Go Eevee

@LadyCharlie yeah basically this for me

@Tchunga We're on the minority here, it seems. I still think they're overcomplicating a fairly obvious subject.

Remasters: upgraded versions of the original, same bones (LM2HD, Skyward Sword HD)

Remakes: Made from the ground up (TTYD, Link’s Awakening)

I thought it was pretty obvious but guess not

Metroid Prime Remastered is the exact same game as the original, same map layout, same combat, same gameplay- same code at the heart of it- but improved graphics and some bonus content. That’s a remaster.

Zero Mission and Samus Returns are remakes because they take the core ideas/stories of the original games and modernize them, built from
the ground up and taking creative liberties to the point that they’re completely different games to the originals. They’re remakes.

The waters get muddy when you have games like the Crash N. Sane Trilogy or Link’s Awakening where they’re designed to pretty much be 1:1 with the original games but visually completely overhauled and built from scratch. More of a middle ground between remaster and remake but they are ultimately remakes. If TTYD is in fact built from the ground up then it’s a remake, just of the more modern brand of remake (“faithful remakes”) that seeks to rebuild the original experience to a tee with modern visuals rather than a redesign.

@NCChris It is as complicated as you want it to be. But if you go by the definitions, it's very clear what something is.

It is quite clear that the correct answer is that there is no correct answer.

i consider a remake to be a different experience. even if the game in question has completely new code, graphics etc, if it plays the same and looks the same its a remaster to me (so wind waker hd is a remaster). i havent played pokemon bdsp, but from what ive seen they also lean closer to remaster since their goal was to replicate the experience of the originals without improving the visuals or gameplay

...one game that goes against my own definition is the remake of 9 hours 9 persons 9 doors, an amazing visual novel that should only be played on ds. thats not a remaster since the fundamentals of the game were changed (the dual screen mechanic was removed for obvious reasons) even though the graphics are just (poorly) remastered from the original ds game, the story and dialogue remains the same etc

@nintendolife TTYD’s code was apparently datamined, and it seems to be a fully remade game using the (probably modified) Origami King engine.

Also I noticed it said Kirby’s Return to Dreamland Deluxe is called a ‘fancy port’, however comparing the two it seems like most of the assets were completely redone. Probably more on the remaster/remake line than a port!

The difference is pretty plain as far as I'm concerned. A port is just a near-identical version of a game on a different platform. It might have a different frame rate or resolution, maybe a couple new settings, language options, or slightly different controls, but it's otherwise the same game as the original. A remaster is built off the same software foundation as the original game, but has significant changes to the in-game models, textures, audio and/or gameplay mechanics. A remake is an attempt to recreate the original game completely from scratch, often with dramatic changes to gameplay or presentation. And a reboot is basically just a new entry in a series presented as if it were the first entry. It might try to modernize the gameplay, visuals, or story that the series is already known for, or it might just throw out everything besides the title, barely even fitting the same genre as whatever it's supposed to be inspired by. The latter should really just call itself a spin-off, because there's no scenario where abandoning the core tenets of a well-established series benefits it in the long run.

Port: Very few changes beyond bug fixes. Mostly between concurrent platforms. E.g. Witcher 3, Divinity, Undertale.

Remaster: Uses the original code and assets in an enhanced form. E.G. Baldur’s Gate, KOTOR, Mario 3D land.

Remake: Brand new code. Doesn’t matter what was added or changed as long as it runs/looks better. E.G. Kirby Return to Dreamland, Crisis Core, Metroid Prime.

Failure: Game is worse than original. E.G. TTYD, Metal Gear Solid 2, Chrono Cross.

I think The Wind Waker HD, Ocarina of Time 3D, Link's Awakening, Metroid Prime Remastered and Paper Mario The Thousand Year Door are all remasters. Yes, Metroid, Paper Mario and Link's Awakening got massive facelifts, but the core games under the surface are the same. It doesn't matter if the game engine is different and if there are some quality of life changes. If it's fundamentally the same experience, it's a remaster to me.

@Hwatt

absolutely, new engine = remake

same engine = remaster

@FishyS Well it seems to be new code, the game being based on the original (as all remakes are).

The ‘plot’ point you made is a good point, though. I personally think something can be remade faithfully and still be called a remake.

I guess it makes sense why the definition is a little blurred now, but I always thought that if a game was remade from the ground up that it was a remake, whether it’s faithful/accurate or taking a different path.

@PcTV Alright, let's address this part then

"Remaster is when you take the original files and master them to make it feel more modern like 16x9 and less compressed audio and textures. Like the Red Dead Redemption remaster."

But...if that's what a remaster is, how do you explain Crash Bandicoot N Sane Trilogy? That's marketed as a remaster but the game was build from the ground up with new models, new textures, new sounds, and uses a different engine from the originals.

If it's so simple then explain this.

@KoopaTheGamer If you think of how remasters and remakes are treated in films though, Links Awakening Switch would be the equivalent of hiring new actors, building new sets etc. and then filming everything to be 100% exact to the original. If you play the original film and the new one side by side they’ll play out almost identically sure, but the new one is still a completely remade film.

@NCChris N.Sane Trilogy is a remake, it’s just a very faithful remake.

@larryisaman I mean it's marketed as a remaster so...not a remake in my opinion.

Like what some have said, I see it like this:

Remaster - The same old game, but with some enhancements to the original code and material in the game, like clearer graphics and audio, better resolution, slightly changed controls, and smoother frame rate (if the original had a poor one). Some aspects of a remaster, like gameplay and story, remain mostly unchanged and intact, though some might have slight differences. The remaster might add in quality-of-life improvements to solve frustrations or clunkiness apart of the game it is remastering.

Example: Banjo-Kazooie (Xbox 360)
The remaster enhances the graphics, audio and music while keeping the content of the original intact. Frame rate and occasional slowdowns are removed, the original controls are changed, and quality-of-life improvements are added to the collectible system. Some new content, such as leaderboards, small bits of new dialogue, and the initially scrapped Stop ‘n’ Swop are added in the remaster.

Remake - The game is redone from the ground up and doesn’t use the original game code. The most obvious change can be seen in the visuals and graphics, which usually add more detail to character models and environments, which are also remade again. A remake might remove parts from the original or add in newer content not apart of the original game, as well as significantly change parts of gameplay and controls. Most remakes are faithful to their originals, but some might deviate a little from the original source material; most of the time, the story (if the game has one) is kept the same like the original. Other parts, like the audio (voice acting and music) tend to be redone as well, but some remakes might keep the old audio in.

Example: Conker: Live and Reloaded (Xbox)
The game is a remake of Conker’s Bad Fur Day (N64), and improves the sound quality alongside graphics and visuals, which have been done from scratch. More detail is added in environments, with the game’s cast given remade models and redesigns. An example is with the titular character, who has been given semi-realistic fur textures and a new outfit with more details and clothing than his original appearance. Similarly, most animal characters are given fur textures as well.

The music is redone, and the controls and gameplay mechanics have been changed and mapped differently to remove clunkiness; for example, the combat system now allows for the player to run around while holding a weapon and attack more using melee weapons, compared to the original, where you had to stop walking while attacking and could only perform a singular attack on enemies. To add on, the player wields a baseball bat instead of a frying pan like in the original.

Story and voice acting are the same, there are changes, such as adding in or lengthening a few cutscenes and removing objectives from the original to remove repetition. Most notably, the remake is more censored than Bad Fur Day and removes the multiplayer modes and cheats from the original, having them replaced altogether with a now offline 3rd-person shooter multiplayer mode accompanied with a new short story campaign.

This is how I would define a remaster and remake! Of course some others might have different definitions of what they consider a remaster and remake.

Tactics Ogre made it easy by just using 'reborn'

@NCChris

Thats the Problem, the Industry is not using the Terms correctly.

@NCChris Companies use the wrong names all the time. Crash Insane Trilogy isn't a remaster, that's easily a remake.
Another example of a company missuing words is Square Enix, they called the FFVII Remake as such, but in reality it's a very loose reimagining of the first third of the game. There they actually course-corrected with the follow-up FFVII Rebirth, a more apt name for it.

@NCChris Probably a marketing decision because they know “remake” suggests an overhaul of the original game and they were selling the idea that these were the same games but with modern visuals. They’re remakes by definition though.

my definition is:

I don‘t care.

Old game in new clothes.

I think it comes down to how the development process went. Was it about improving existing assets and/or only replacing a few with newer ones or were they making the equivalent of a completely new game, but with an existing game to base it off of?

Essentially, the way I see it, a remaster is like if you took a drawing, traced over it and (tried to) improve it. Maybe you even went and drew a new character where there wasn't one before, but you didn't draw it from scratch. A remake is like if you took that drawing as a reference point and made an entirely new one. Maybe it came out looking exactly like the original, or maybe it looks really different, but either way you started from zero.

@PcTV See this is what I do not understand. How can you say N Sane Trilogy is a remake but FF7R isn't?
FF7R - Remakes everything from the ground up AND does a whole load of new stuff like the presentation of the story and the gameplay.
CBNST - Remakes everything from the ground up but sticks closely to the original games.

If it's as simply as you claim, why is all this so hard to make sense of?

@NCChris That's very easy to understand. I mention FFVII Remake isn't a Remake not out of not creating enough new things, but rather, the game essentially took the ideas of FFVII and is telling essentially a different story.
It's almost like comparing Zelda A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time. Two very different games with similar story beats.
Crash Bandicoot Insane Trilogy is a remake because it's attempt was always to remake the original game.
It certainly isn't hard to make sense of for me.

Just gimme 60 fps in the games that originally had them. And in the ones that didn't that are TWENTY years old.
Thanks

@PcTV I Agree with this. If the game is changed too much, it is not a remake but a whole new thing.

@PcTV Huh...you know when you put it that way I actually see what you mean.

@Azuris

Yea and I don't think it's that black and white either. I like to imagine it on a scale or spectrum. If we want to compare it against a political spectrum:

Far left = Different Game
Far Right = Original Game

So to map it out...

Different Game <-> Reboot <-> Remake <-> Remaster <-> Port <-> Original Game

Sometimes a game lands in between those definitions. To ground those definitions, I usually think of these games

Reboot = Doom (2016)
Remake = Dead Space (2023), RE2 (2019)
Remaster = Metroid Prime: Remastered, RE4 HD (2014).

Definitely Paper Mario TTYD is a remake but I can see it on the scale in between remaster and remake given the lack of content changes vs. other remakes. One might argue a remaster would of been a better fit, to not compromise on the frame rate. Like Metroid Prime.

Re-Master: Touch up for current Gen. Story and content stay the same.

Re-Make: Make it from the ground up as if it were the first time. Some additions welcome. Story stays the same.

Re-Boot: Same as Re-Make BUT ALSO add in tons more content, ESPECIALLY / SPECIFICALLY including Content that was cut for time or budget. Story also changes a bit.

Remaster: Simply a port of a game's code to new hardware. Higher resolutions, improved textures, more effects, improved framerate and other improvements and new features can be added.

Remake: A game remade from the ground up with a new engine, not actually sharing any code from the original. The art style and overall graphics can be drastically different than the original, or assets can be taken directly from the original game and improved to create a faithful recreation. More effects can be introduced as this is, after all, a recreation with a new, probably better engine.

So basically, to me it comes down to either a port of the original or an actual remake using all new code. Simple as that.

One of the biggest examples I see people using as a Remake is Final Fantasy VII Remake, but Remake is not a remake, it's a sequel. Completely different from the first game and exists outside of it.

But besides that, the way I look at it is "is this game intending to completely replace any need to play the original?" If yes, it's a remaster. A remake implies that there is enough being changed to warrant a "new" game, so you could still play the original and have a different experience, while a remaster is meant to replace the game by leaving no reason to play the original; it looks better, might have a few more qol features, and turns an 8/10 game to a 9/10 (if done properly). A remake can turn a 4/10 game into a 10/10 game.

Really I think it's a completely useless and stupid distinction because most of the time people will know what you mean regardless of which word you use. Most bickering about it is just being needlessly pedantic over nothing.

The actual definitions are that a remaster uses the same engine and code as the original, while a remake uses none of the original code. It can have all of the same assets as the original and still be a remake if they rebuild the codebase from the ground up. Likewise, every asset in the game could be updated and it could still be a remaster if it's codebase is forked from the original.

A remake (just like in its name) completely reworks the game. A remaster is simply making it look better (possibly some quality of life improvements that were missing added but keeping it in essence the same story and game).

@Lizuka

I disagree. I think it's a relevant discussion point because no two games are the same and definitions evolve over time. All studios approach it slightly differently and brand them differently.

There might be some common principles that are true for a remake vs. remaster but sometimes a game walks a fine line between. Sometimes it's even labelled as a "Reimagining" even if objectively, at it's core, it's a remake. Like FF7 Remake. Wikipedia groups them all together on one page with notes for each individual title because it can get quite granular.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_remakes_and_remastered_ports

@C_Yo64 There is no "actual definition". It's completely arbitrary and subjective. Still interesting to talk about, though.

@IceClimbersMain I think Final Fantasy VII Remake is closest to a reboot since it changed the story. It doesn't make sense to call it a sequel since it's not a continuation to the original game.

I think a remaster means to touch it up here and there.

A remake means to smooth out flaws like janky controls, game breaking bugs, adding a save system if it came out during a time when save batteries were new and too expensive. Things like that.

For me, a remaster is when you get the OG game, upgrade the resolution, fps and so, maybe add some QoL enhancements, and that's about it. It feels exaclty like the original game, but you can play it now and won't suffer from the outdated way of playing.
Examples: FFVII (not the remake), VIII, IX, X, XII, Chrono Cross, Super Mario 3D All Stars, Zelda Skyward Sword, Grandia HD Collection, the REmake's remaster, Baldur's Gate 1+2, Klonoa 1+2, Baten Kaitos 1+2, Pikmin 1+2...

Now then, a remake is a game that might have the same structure or include some additions, but it's clearly noticeable that it was made from the ground up. It has new assets, new lighting, new effects, new controls... It's totally up to date, so much that it's impossible to feel that it's an old game, even if the game itself hasn't changed a bit. Basically, if it looks and feels like new, but it's already quite old.
Examples: REmake, RE 2, 3 and 4, Zelda Wind Waker HD (TP is there there...), Ocarina of Time 3D and Majora's Mask 3D, Metroid Zero Mission, Samus Returns and Prime Remastered (everything looks like new), Trials of Mana, Live a Live, Super Mario RPG, Fire Emblem Echoes of Valentia...

And then there are reboots like FFVII Remake/Rebith.

Remaster = essentially the same game but with a ‘new coat of paint’ e.g. Ocarina of Time 3D

Remake = total reinvention whilst sticking with the spirit of the original e.g Resident Evil 2 remake

Remaster to me is taking the original and cleaning it up and adding bug fixes and updates/QoL. Remake is building a new game from the ground up but using the old game as the foundation/inspiration. Reboot is keeping lore/franchise as a guide but otherwise starting over.

@KoopaTheGamer Exactly this.
I think the best way to approach this topic is to think it's more of a spectrum. You start at standard game and then at the end you have a reboot. I feel this is the most realistic approach because that way everyone can have their own cut-off points.

If rebuilding a game from the ground up makes it a remake (even if the result is identical to the original), then does that mean every port made before 1990 is a remake?

The lines are so blurred that these definitions no longer make that much sense, especially compared to upscaled ports/remasters in that HD were appearing during the PS3/360 generation.

Honestly, the terms mean different things to individual player, but the developers and marketing teams don’t exactly have a standardised “guideline” either. This makes sense considering the varying quality of games that have been Ported/Remastered/Remade etc, as they can be sooo different so much from title to title.

From my stance, I’ve seen excellent quality Remasters that “feel” more like they should be labeled a Remake (Metroid Prime), and Remakes that from the outside appear more like a HD Remaster (PM: TTYD).

The problem with this however, is we grade the games quality based on those terms rather unfairly too, which I think isn’t wise as that sets unrealistic expectations compared to what developers are trying to achieve.

It’s like:

Remake = A Grade / Effort
HD Remaster = B Grade / Mid Effort
Port = C Grade / Quick Cash in job

For example - me saying I feel PM: TTYD seems more like a Remaster really rubs people up the wrong way - like I’m not giving it full credit. Not only do I appreciate it’s a Remake, but I’m not branding into a “Mid tier” sort of development cycle. The 30/60FPS argument aside, they did really good with bringing this game back from the GameCube in a quality way.

On top of that - you sometimes have subcategory definitions within these terms to really make it harder to pinpoint.

The most important thing is that a game is good, enjoyable and holds up to this day (regardless of QOL’s and whatnot). If that’s the outcome, then terms really don’t matter that much.

I go with the all inclusive term “rehash” to describe an 80$ game with less than 80$ worth of new content.

@Sonicka I think you might've hit on what was bothering me about all this: when the definitions are inconsistent (which they definitely are!), then people view the games inconsistently- or unfairly, as you said.

Plenty of remasters are basically just ports, with the bulk of the "remastering" happening automatically as a result of switching to better hardware. So then, when Metroid Prime: Remastered comes along, and it gets lumped in with those, it seems like people are selling it short, and downplaying all of the work that was put into it. And all the more so, when other games do the same thing, but get to be called "remakes"!

I mean, we can describe those enhanced ports as remasters, anything with fully rebuilt artwork on top of original gameplay (MP Remastered, TTYD, Shadow of the Colossus) as remakes, and full rebuilds like FFVII Remake as "reimaginings". OR we can shift the whole continuum over a notch, and say that HD remasters are just ports, full graphical overhauls are remasters, and FFVII Remake is indeed a remake. I don't care- either one is fine. But let's be consistent!

Remake is when you revisit the game development process. Remaster is when you work over the former final product.

Really simple concise answer -
Remaster = Cleaned up or totally facelifted visuals and audio. Quality of life additions and improvements.
Remake = A complete reimagining of the original work from the ground up. Using only minimal original resources, if any, from the original.

If you're moving to a new game engine and rebuilding the game that is a remake, and it can be as simple as just literally porting it to a new engine and increasing the graphic fidelity, to actually changing the gameplay and approaching it with modern sensibilities and even new content.

I thought the definitions were pretty simple and people have just not understood it and mixed them up for so long. We understand this perfectly when it comes to movies!

A Remaster takes an existing game and ups the resolution along with other changes, which are usually very minor.

A Remake builds from the ground up but is conceptually following an old game. There's a lot of wiggle room with remakes. You have OOT3D and MM3D which are extremely conservative in their approach, to the point where they even look like remasters with a few different models here and there until you look at comparison screenshots (and it feels like some of it is actually just remastered, like the music and sound effects). In the middle you have, say the Pokemon mainline remakes and then on the far end you have more drastic reimaginations like the FFVII Remake series. BUT one thing is universal in everything that is a remake and that is that it is built from the ground up. With the rare exception like OOT3D and MM3D, these are very noticeably different from a remaster.

Remaster: The same exact game (as in, its at the core a port), but with better resolution, sound quality, frame rate, ect. Sometimes new models or animations or other fixes. Ex: Final Fantasy X and X2 HD

Remake: A fully new recreation of the original game, using minimal to none of the assets or code of the original. This can be something with lots of changes and new features, such as Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes, or be shot for shot nearly identical, like Super Mario RPG or Links Awakening or Final Fantasy Pixel Remaster (yes, these were all total recreations)

Reimagining, which this article should have included, is when an original game is used as a jumping off point to create something entirely different. Ex Resident Evil 2 and 3

I think for the most part, the terms are pretty clear and straightforward, the only caveat I have is the idea that, if the game still uses the same code, no matter what is done with the visuals, it’s still a remaster. Personally, I think if the visuals change too much, then the game becomes a soft-remake (as opposed to a full remake, which completely overhauls everything) because at that point, you’re not just upscaling the game to fit in somewhat with newer systems, you’re going beyond that to create something altogether different from the original. So, games like Metroid Prime Remastered, and GTA Trilogy Remastered, to me are more soft-remakes, as they change the visuals too much for them to be just remasters.
Also, if a game upscales the resolution and nothing else, that’s still a remaster, not a port.

@Hwatt Your definitions are the only correct ones. Most importantly, "remasters" cannot contain new material, i.e. new graphics, new music, etc. Remasters use the original source material. If Nintendo sold the GameCube WindWaker version, running in Dolphin, with the graphics upscaled to 1080p, that would be a remaster. All these GameCube/Wii games coming to Switch are "remakes" because Nintendo is literally remaking the graphics. The intent is for the graphics to be identical or nearly identical, but they are being remade. It's not like Nintendo made Wind Waker graphics at 1080p resolution years ago and then downscaled them for the GameCube.

I honestly could care less. I often use the terms interchangeably, but someone always comes at you with an "Uhm, ACKSHUALLY 🤓" when you do. It's very annoying.

NINTENDO DOES NINTENDO!

@LadyCharlie That's arguably the best way to describe the terms and differences there.

Here's a fun one for you guys: Resident Evil for Switch

Ok, so its a Switch PORT from the PS3 REMASTER from the Gamecube REMAKE from the PS1 GAME.

The definition is simple, these terms have actually nothing to do with the effort put into them as popularity believed by many. There's actually simple technical definition which I will list below.

Remaster: An updated version of the game based on the original source code, assets can be replaced or upgraded, new features can be added. But it's still starts off with the original source code.
Example: Twilight Princess HD, Wind Waker HD, Metroid Prime Remastered

Remake: This is the game rebuilt from scratch in order to take it to the modern day, this does not use the originals source code, some of the originals assets such as soundtracks or sprites for example could still be carried over to the remake (usually it's not) but the actual source code is completely rewritten.
Example: Pokemon HG/SS, Super Mario RPG, Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters (I know Square Enix as usual has no clue)

Reboot: This takes it a step further than a remake in that it's more loosely based on the original game or franchise while often doing its own thing with gameplay and storytelling.

One good example of this is the Final Fantasy VII Remake (Yes it's funny again how the Remake is actually a reboot, Square Enix still confuse the world with their weird naming practises, just like they did back in the 90s)
Another good example is the two latest DOOM games.
Also that Devil May Cry game "DmC: Devil May Cry" on PS3 (I try to forget this disaster)

There's many more examples, The was a Silent Hill game that was retelling the story of the original Silent Hill with a huge amount of freedom, Shattered Memories I think it was called. This should also be counted as a reboot however I probably only played 20 minutes of that game.

But all in all

Remaster: Upgraded sourcecode/assets
Remake: Completely remade from scratch
Reboot: Same as remake but with the intention of being a different experience from the original.

Additionally you have "Ports".. Weird name I know..
They are basically just taking the source code and changing some HUD elements to fit the target console (like in game button icons). And then they making sure that the game performs acceptable on the target system before compiling it and putting it out for sale. Sometimes ports are also remasters and sometimes remasters are also ports.

Thanks for reminding me about windwaker hd. I hope they announce it at the direct. Sure i could get my wii u out to play it but the gamepad thumbsticks have gone yellow and sticky.

When I think of a remaster, its basically a game that polishes the graphics, fixes bugs, makes some QOL fixes, and maybe adds in some new content or two. Examples of this would be the recent Tomb Raider 1-3 collection. Basically the same game with cleaner graphics, all the content, and some extras like updated graphics and controls (switchable of course).

Remake is the game that has been redone from the ground up. It has practically the same story, but with lots of new content, gameplay elements, etc. To me this would be something like Persona 3 Reload, Metroid 2 Samus Returns, etc.

ANd then I think of a Port, which is basically, the same game, but running on the intended system's hardware. Sometimes it'll get lucky with better graphics, but thats about it. Basically Super Mario 3D All Stars (though that at least had a music player).

“What’s the difference between an orange and a banana, to you personally?” 🙄🤦‍♂️

Port: The exact same code as the original.
Remaster: Same source code as the original game, with a few extra pieces (or maybe loads, it just has to keep the base).
Remake: Completely new program, no matter if there are new features or not.

An orange is orange and a banana is like a sort of HD orange but completely remade from the ground up with new textures and lighting and an enhanced user interface and also it’s yellow and/or green and/or black and like a plantain but typically sweeter and lacking in genetic diversity due to over-propagation of a single strain putting the entire global supply chain at risk.

I suppose it is an interesting intellectual discussion for some, and I'm certainly not beyond talking about the arcane minutae of particular things, but on this issue I have no interest.

I don’t care about assets, but to me a remake means there’s something different about it than before — not just visuals, UI, QoL things.

a) Who cares.

2) A remaster is a port with enhancements to account for new hardware, better available resources, etc. (e.g., SaGa Frontier Remastered) while a remake is remade from the ground up (e.g., FF7 Remake). Many games straddle this line (e.g., Super Mario Advance's version of SMB2).

D) No really, who cares. In practical conversation the terms are interchangeable.

Remake means the game was completely remade with new code/engine

Remaster means it was touched up but the core engine and code are the same

Also, I don’t think FF7 Remake is really a remake since it’s a different game. More like a reimagining

Games like Mario Kart 8DX are tough though. Not really a remake and not a remaster or port. More like am enhanced version

FFVII Remake/Rebirth is an interesting one. And not even something I think fits into this conversation.

Square deliberately knew what they were doing with the subtitle of the first of the Trilogy, because it doesn’t mean what we would think it means so they can do the rug pull much later on.

And even then, the fact that Remake took the beginning 4-5 hour section of the original PS1 game and made it +40 hour complete game was hella impressive. Not to mention the gameplay is entirely different with it’s interpretation of turn based battles leaning into a hybrid action based affair.

But when it comes down to it, you need the context of the original title to really “get” what’s going on. This new trilogy is more of a quasi-sequel to FFVII than a remake/reboot, especially when the in game events start becoming clearer.

I honestly don’t care how they’re defined. If it’s done well and it’s a game I like then I’ll probably buy it.

@Not_Soos Uhm, ACKSHUALLY, it's "I couldn't care less" 🤓

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.) 😅

Remake=likes of tomb raider anniversary
Remaster=exact same game as original, but with better performance and higher resolution

@GrailUK An excellent way to put it. It makes it much simpler in movie terms. A remastered DVD/Blue ray of a film, we all pretty much know what that entails. A remake would essentially be taking the basic script/plot and shooting everything a new.

@Dark_Isatari It doesn't quite work like that.

These terms are strictly technical terms. These names were not created to describe the enduser product but instead describes the way the products were created.

for example the word remaster is borrowed from the film and music industry where a master is considered the "final mix" which is then copied and distributed to customers.
The act of "remastering" is to create a new master using the original source material (usually this is done because new better technology gets available making it possible to create a better master)

In terms of a remake, it would be more like asking the artist to step back into the studio and record the same song again.
Like a re-recording.. Hikaru Utada recently re-recorded Simple and Clean from kingdom hearts.
In such a case they won't use any of the original tracks, everything has to be performed again.

Whether or not new features are added or if something changed is completely irrelevant to the meaning of the words.

However if you completely remake something with a whole new vision it already has a name, it's called reboot.
It's very common in the film industry.

@Sonicka To me it's clear that it's a reboot because you need to look at the game as a whole. It's retelling the story with a bunch of alternative dimensions and time travel stuff which probably could place it as a sequel to Advent children chronologically (Although I don't think this has been confirmed)

But the thing is that it's not just the story that has changed, the entire genre has changed, but it still follows most of the events from the original. That's classic reboot stuff in my opinion (even if they attempt to confuse things having event's from the future altering the past and stuff like that)

@LadyCharlie Respectfully I disagree with most of your definition.

Final Fantasy VII Remake is not a remake, it's a reboot.

Your definition of remake is that the gameplay and experience has to be different right.

That would mean that Zelda - Links awakening isn't a remake.
But if it's not a remake then what is it? A remaster?

No it can't be a remaster because a remaster is built from remastering the original source, that is what the word means (which you would know if you had a grasp on music or film production where the word master and remaster has been used for a very long time)

So if it isn't a remaster and isn't a remake, then what is it?

To me it's clear that the word remake in this case does not equal "different" but rather "made from scratch".

Links awakening is very similar to the original game with barely any new features and the gameplay is about the same as it was on gameboy. But it IS a remake, a very faithful remake.
Because it was rewritten from scratch, none of the original source code were used. That's what a remake is.

But a remake don't need to be as faithful as Links Awakening
You can add new features and make adjustments to gameplay and so on and still call it a remake.

Like Pokemon HG/SS added quite a few new features and content but the core gameplay remained faithful to the originals. These are great remakes. (not remasters and not reboots)

However when you start taking it so far as to change the story and genre so that it's a completely different experience from the original then it's called a reboot. Final Fantasy VII Remake is a quite good example of a Reboot

@DaniPooo My definition has not changed, and will not change.

@LadyCharlie You do you I guess.

But this is really not a debate.
These words are well defined already.

Imagine sitting in the interrogation room at a police office and being like "But my definition of theft is..." lol

@FishyS

It is in the Term they are remaking the product, not releasing the same again.

Remastering is overhauling, you have the Source and you do a new Master of it.
It is also in the Term.

If you remake your House, it means you are building it again from the Ground with the same plans.
If you are "remastering" it, you get it new Paint, repairing Stuff etc.

Doom for the Switch for Example is also a Remake, it works on a whole new Engine (Unity), even if it works mostly the same and they reuse Assets.
Its not a DOS Game.

@Hwatt

Rebooting means to start new, it is seperate from the Work itself.

As said, if you build the Ground Structure from Scratch, you are remaking it, even of you take old Assets with you.

In China they made a Copy of the Eiffel Tower, you wouldn't name that a Remaster, even if they used the same Plans and Paint.

You can make it out by just asking if the Engine has changed, if it has, they literally have to write new Code.
It is a new Chassis, Skeleton, Body

What you are refrain to is the Ship of Theseus.
But there they only change out Parts until everything is new, askening if it is a new Ship or still the same.

To stay with that, in a Remake they would take the original Sail and Rudder to a new Ship made equaly.

A Remaster is changing out Parts of the existing Ship.

@DaniPooo you see - I’m already cross pollinating terms like Reboot / Remake when referring to a title like Final Fantasy VII Remake. Part of my original statement was how meaningless these terms can feel after a while because everything that developers attempt to do by updating their games always feels so different and doesn’t follow strict criteria.

That said, despite me using the “quasi sequal” terminology, I was more referring to my internal justification to explain the story away and how events from the timeline from the original game are seemingly bleeding into this trilogy - (like a multiverse etc…). For the game as a whole in itself - yes I do agree that the term “Reboot” feels more appropriate - the experience is entirely different to FFVII - therefore it can’t really be a Remake. The title was just a clever misnomer used by Square.

@LadyCharlie: FFIII or IV on the Nintendo DS is probably a better example of a faithful “Remake”.that sticks to the original base of the game without shifting its genre and ideas to much.

But hey… terminologies… as long as the game is enjoyable, beyond how a game is sold to the consumer, I don’t think definitions are really that importan overall.

@Sonicka Square Enix is one of the only companies I know who don't know what is what.

They call their remakes of the old Final Fantasy classics Pixel Remasters as well.

They have always been weird when it comes to naming things.

For me, there's ports, remasters, and remakes. Ports are when games are just moved from one console to another, sometimes with a few changes (aka an enhanced port), remasters are when the changes are largely (or only) visual, and remakes are when substantial changes are made to the core game. To demonstrate, Super Mario 64 on VC and NSO are ports, Super Mario 64 in Mario All-Stars is a remaster, and Super Mario 64 DS is a remake.

Personally I usually classify remasters as just ports of games with slightly improved graphics ( examples: Tomb radier 1-3 remastered and metriod prime remastered) whereas a remake is a full blown recreation of a game but with all new bells and whistles (examples dead space remake and the resident evil morden remakes.)

@-wc- Thank you. This has got to be the correct launching point for this debate, but the issue comes when there's no analog(ue) medium for the "masters". If you're using the original reels of film/tape but using updated video or audio production techniques, it's a remaster. This is easy to tell in film because actors age, so a film remake would use different actors. It's harder with music, but it's so rare that when it happens, like Taylor Swift recently, it's generally well-known.

Both industries have moved to digital recording equipment, but again, re-recording is rare in music. I suppose a parallel debate has been had though in film regarding CG movies. If you were to re-do a Pixar movie, for instance, the issue would likely be a quantitative difference of how much was changed rather than a qualitative difference of the method used. So then it becomes an application of the Theseus' ship thought experiment.