Can We Please Define What a "Remaster" Really Is?

OnlySP: We've been getting a lot of remasters this year... I mean, A LOT of remasters, with even more coming.

So far this year we've had Borderlands: The Handsome Collection, Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin, State of Decay: YOSE and that's just to name a few of the many. Even today for that matter, God of War 3 re-released for the PS4, and Prototype 1 & 2 re-released on current gen consoles, with Gears of War: Ultimate Edition, The Uncharted Collection and Dishonored: Definitive Edition just around the corner.

[uth11]

Why don't we just call them "ports"?

[Neonridr]

then they don't sound as special and worth a second buy.. ;)

[gangsta_red]

Exactly, everyone gets more excited and throwing money at their screen when "remaster" is attached at the end of a product. It's marketing at its best, the new blast processing of this new gen.

But in reality most "remasters" are nothing more than a port with a slight res bump.

[TFJWM]

But that is all a remaster is. Just like if a movie is remastered its just better image quality and sound nothing else is changed.

[LOGICWINS]

I think remasters are primarily meant for people who have never played these games and want to play them, even if the game only looks 20% better than the original version.

If you ONLY own a PS4, getting the Remastered Trilogy is a lot cheaper/efficient than buying a used PS3 and buying used copies of the originals.

I was thinking about double-dipping, but I decided to opt out. I don't even have the Witcher 3 yet and Just Cause 3 and Persona 5 are on the horizon.

[gangsta_red]

@TFJ

The good movie remasters usually come with something more than just improved image quality. Commentary tracks, alternate endings, uncut footage, etc, etc.

@LOGICWINS

That is not a good excuse for the Playstation system especially when Sony has PSNow available and they could easily make the game available on there.

For other remasters, most are not even that old or even deserve to be remastered. I mean Prototype 1 and 2? Cool game but does it really need to be remastered for the new systems?

Give me a remaster of a very old game, with added content, fixed issues and improved gameplay. Devil May Cry 4 is a perfect example of a remaster done right.

[ziggurcat]

@gangsta:

you don't even need to own a playstation in order to use PSNow:

http://www.engadget.com/201...

so your point is completely moot.

edit: you're also looking at remasters the completely wrong way. while i do agree that there are ones out there that clearly didn't need to be made, they are an excellent opportunity for those who either didn't own last gen consoles or never played those games last gen to be able to play them this gen with better resolution, better textures, and a better frame rate. when given the choice, if i have not played the game, i will always choose the best version that is available.

[Crimzon]

Actually you just made his point even stronger ziggurcat.

Anyways, I think lazy cashgrab is a more appropriate term, to be honest. I saw earlier that God of War 3 was ported to PS4 by a team of just two guys for example, yet we're expected to pay such a ridiculous price for a resolution and fps boost? In PC games it's as simple as opening the options menu and changing those yourself, but greedy publishers now want to charge crazy prices for the privilege.

Slimy business practices.

[gangsta_red]

@Ziggurcat

"you don't even need to own a playstation in order to use PSNow:"

So how does that relate to your excuse of "For people who never owned a PS3"?

I mean if you don't even own a Playstation or never had then having this game available on PSNow would make even MORE sense.

@your edit
That excuse is getting very lame as its always seems to have the fallback of "people who never owned..." attached to it at the end. It's just funny to see all these excuses being made as to why remasters are great and why people should buy them but then to see a lot of arguments being made as to why BC isn't needed or necessary.

@Crimzon
Exactly!

[spacedelete]

exactly. would people have called The Last Of Us on PS4 a remaster if the PS3 and PS4 version released at the same time ? nope.

[Rimeskeem]

Of course not, do you call the PS4 version of CoD a remastered version of the PS3?

[Neonridr]

that's a fair point, otherwise games like Destiny and Assassin's Creed Black Flag should be called remasters too since they are just better looking versions of the PS3 game. ;)

[spacedelete]

Rimeskeem thats exactly what i'm getting at. the word "remaster" is a marketing trick so many fall for.

[uth11]

That was my argument at the time TLOU:R came out... would there be so much remaster "hate" if it was just labeled a PS4 port?

[Angeljuice]

@spacedelete

A remaster is when you take source material (from the MASTER copy) and alter it. It specifically has to edit or adjust the original finished artefact.

In this case the master copy is the PS3 version. If it were released at the same time it wouldn't be called a remaster because it wouldn't be a remaster (the master copy would be on the PS4).

It isn't a marketing trick at all, it is a word for which there is no alternative.

It really isn't a difficult concept to understand;
Master Copy + change = Remastered Copy.

[AngelicIceDiamond]

@Rime "Of course not, do you call the PS4 version of CoD a remastered version of the PS3?"

Yeah this is getting confusing.

Imo a remaster has to be defined by Halo MCC. Its a collection with redone visuals that you can switch out between old graphics and the remastered visuals. All in 1080p 60 frames. With ALL the maps and most of the modes.

Quality is another topic but in terms of a remaster Halo MCC moved the goal post on how a remastering is done.

You can't take all the Halo's put them on 360 and do what they did on X1. That's why Halo MCC defines the word "remaster."

[Spotie]

A remaster is taking the original version and making it better after its initial release. That's different from a cross generational release like Destiny or even Call of Duty.

That's why, using the movie analogy again, you get DVD/BLU RAY packs, not DVD/Remaster packs.

[Rimeskeem]

A port would signify that there was absolutely no changed between the versions. As Pocky said, there can be a lot of spin on the version. But the main deal is that if the game has a version that looks exactly the same then it's a port. If the game was bumped to HD with higher framerate then it's definitive edition. If the devs took the time for better textures lighting or any kind of visual aspects it should be a remaster.

@pockey

its a very thin line to be honest

[Wingsfan24]

Port - no change
Definitive Edition - Higher resolution, frame-rate plus a few gameplay updates
Remaster - Upgraded graphics from original (etc)

I think that's how it should go really. But, from looking at these comments already, everyone has a different opinion of what each of those terms seems to mean, and that's all thanks to the screwed up marketing techniques thrown around.

[Neonridr]

not increased resolution or framerate?

[ginsunuva]

Not really.

A "port" to PC will make it probably look a lot better and have more features.

A "port" to Vita will make it look worse and maybe even lose features.

[uth11]

In the old days, a "port" to a better system was expected to look better.

Ironically some of these "remasters" today have little to no changes!

[jhoward585]

@PockyKing

Port - no change. Well, the term port in the marketing world is pointless. So publishers would rather use the term remaster because most consumer would most likely see it as something that is done all over again.

The remastered games I've seen so far aren't really remasters because most of the work are done by the computer.Its just as simple as changing visual output parameters of a game to scale the graphics and frame rate a bit. very little hand work are implemented. So, a good chuck of the hard work are done by the computer. The hardest part to port a game is moving everything from one hardware architecture to another hardware architecture.A lot of hard coding are used to accomplish this. Plus, with the help of Today's software has greatly improved the filtering and clean up of sound bytes.

Definitive Edition - Higher resolution, frame-rate plus a few game play updates. Is correct.

MS seems to be making more effort of remastering their game imo.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

A remaster is not a port. The Gears of War Ultimatr Edition has new textures, redone cutscenes, new art, higher resolution and double the frame rate. It's basically a new game.

A port is a port. It's a game that's been engineered to work on something that it wasn't available on previously.

[magiciandude]

Definitive Edition is the more appropriate term...

That's what most "remasters" are, just a slightly better version of an older game. DE is more honest than remastered in these cases. A real example of a remaster would be Gears of War: Ultimate Edition as they're rebuilding that game from the ground up, using newer assets, re-rendering the cutscenes, and restructuring the multiplayer to using dedicated servers.

GoW III is an example of a port with a slight up-res. There's nothing new added to the gameplay, and reviewers have been saying it looks virtually the same as the PS3 version, as they're using most of the same assets. What's really remastered about that?

[MadLad]

It doesn't help justify double-dipping quite as well.

[vega275]

@ uth11

"Whydon't we call them "port"?"

Why not call some of them what they really are. "Money grab" because thats what they really are. This B@llsh@t excuse "bu bu bu" many people didnt have a certain console or never played it. That a BS excuse.

First off. If people didnt buy it last gen. What makes you think they will this one. Why? Cause its got a shinny new coat of paint and a slightly higher Frame rate. No just no

Second. Most people I see thats interested in re-buying those games again are people that bought it the first time or had the console last gen. "Bu bu bu I owned the console but never bought the game" yeah sure you didnt.

Anyway that excuse is why they keep pumping these games out with little change to them because they know their fanbase are suckers and will happily re-buy them for full price.

TMCC is probably the best example of what a remaster should be. Every MP map, all four games, Switch between old version and new on the fly. The MP
May have had It's hiccups. But thats how you make a remaster game.

I think the article that was posted from youtube yesterday was spot on before it was failed because people didnt like the fact that he was calling out their favorite company for their practice.

[MadLad]

It's a practice we saw only a handful of times last generation, and that's where it all started. Mainly near the end of the generation.
Now we're supposed to just treat it as normal practice and not question it, no matter what the state the release itself comes in.

At this point? It feels like every week we hear of a new re-release/remaster

If it's not something closer to a remake than a simple up-res version on a new console, than I argue it's existence entirely.
It is just a money grab.

All the same, it's a practice, defended by fanboys, and now almost glorified.

As far as the companies are concerned, it's not simply for a "new audience who didn't get to play". It's for them, as well as all of the fanboys who will re-buy, and re-gush; start fanboy wars over it all again because that's what they do.

Bubbled you because, while I may simply be tired of seeing the disgusting amount of regurgitated content to be had this generation, I am actually starting to get pissed off at the rabid defenders of the idiotic practice.
Care to link me to the video, if you have it?

[Toiletsteak]

To me a remaster is when they make the game look so much better then just HD FPS upgrade.

[Neonridr]

for example?

[RedDeadLB]

Gears of War Ultimate, Fable Anniversary, Black Mesa etc.

It's all semantics, really. These could all be considered remakes, and remakes are just remasters on a higher level than just a higher framerate and texture resolution bump.

But I agree, we need remasters that are more akin to what The Coalition are doing with Gears of War. 1080p60fps is just not enough of an effort. Give us remade models, sounds, textures, cinematics.

[k2d]

Even though I am definitely a Playstation fan, I would appreciate it if publishers like Sony and MS made a clear distinction between remasters and upscaled re-releases. I have no doubt Uncharted was quite the undertaking, but the industry should elevate the value of what a remaster is.

Uncharted collection - re-release.
Grim fandango - remaster.

Whether or not new assets or mechanics have been added.

[MadLad]

Anything that doesn't simply drop old content on a new console, and then ask us to be amazed it can look clearer and run better.

Remade assets, added content, new effects. Something that shows the developer/publisher did a little bit to add to the experience in the years since its release. They sure feel it's worthy to resell to the modern gamer. . . so modernize it. A little bit of work, outside of what can simply be offered by way of better tech itself.

[ginsunuva]

Then where do we distinguish remaster and remake?

[Rimeskeem]

A remake is when you are literally remaking the entire game (R and C, FF7) Remaster is where you take the original and improve the textures, lighting, etc....

[TWB]

No, the remaster is exactly just bumping up the resolution, detail and performance of the original assets and game, check NeverHeavyMan's comment because it explains everything very straightforwardly.

[AngelicIceDiamond]

But you see that's the thing, we can see all that with cross gen games. Destiny is built for PS3 and 360 in mind but ported to PS4 and X1. Obviously newer consoles will run the game better but devs call them ports.

Its confusing, I dunno I think it is a marketing ploy to be honest.

[Angeljuice]

@Toiletsteak

Remaster is a word with a defined meaning, it doesn't change its meaning depending on the person experiencing it. It simply isn't subjective at all.

The colour green is the colour green, your comment is the equivalent of saying;

"To me green is only green when it is right next to something red".

It simply doesn't make sense.

[NeverHeavyMan]

It originally referred to sound. A "remaster" of an original recording.

These days, it is exactly as it states for video games, too. It's not just some fancy rhetoric. Of course they're ports, but unlike a traditional port, these are increasing the quality of the original material. So, higher resolutions, textures, characters, etc, etc... and thus, you have a Remaster.

The problem with some folks, though - they go into a Remaster expecting a Remake. Two totally different things.

[jmc8888]

There's remasters, remakes, and ports or near ports. Then there are also redux.

Some games are remastered to include better assets on newer systems.

Some games are remade and are like a reboot to a franchise. They generally have slightly to very different plot then the original. Think the new FFVII

Then there are ports or near ports. These are games that basically already had a better version like say on PC compared to say a 360/PS3 version, but they are doing another port that is similar to that more advanced PC version, but are now on PS4/XB1. Sometimes they are near ports because they may add a brand new DLC or two. Think Payday 2.

Redux are generally a slightly different take, and can have better assets, and they are generally done not too long after the original. Think Metro Redux or Sleeping Dogs.

[spacedelete]

i think these "remasters"prove how stupidly long last gen was. all these games getting ported like Dark Souls 2 and GTAV should have originally been PS4 and Xbox One games had Sony and MS ended last gen when they should have back in 2010 or 2011.

[ginsunuva]

I think you missed the part where it made almost 2x the money.

[spacedelete]

what made 2x the money ?

[headblackman]

the master chief collection and gears of war ultimate and tomb raider the definitive edition was all remasters. everything else has just been remakes (ports). these games actually added something more than a higher resolution and or a faster fps. in the graphics department of all 3 listed remastered games there was increased polygon counts, improved lighting, better and increased particle effects, water effects, fire effects, and more. sound was reworded in at 2 out of 3 of those games. nothing was stripped from either of the games but more was added to them all. and fps increased on the ps4 ver. of tomb raider from 30fps to 6fps. the x1 ver. was a locked rock solid 30fps (which is still fair, but not 60fps).

so by looking at all of these remastered and remakes, it's clear and easy to see which is which, but for some it's hard to say which is which for the sake of a so called console war.

just a reminder to all.... THE WAR ISN'T REAL!!!

GAME ON!!!

[NeverHeavyMan]

You have things quite mixed up. Remakes are not ports. They are Remakes. Also, what you described for Gears, Halo, and Tomb Raider is exactly what we've gotten (are getting) with TLOU, Uncharted Collection, and Metro: Redux. They're all ports from last gen source material, but with Remastered assets (the degree of the remastered material isn't really the debate, either - a remaster is a remaster).

The only Remakes I've seen announced are Ratchet and Clank and FFVII. Everything else has/have been Remasters.

[ginsunuva]

Tomb Raider????

You mean the PC version ported to console?

[amnalehu]

See "The Last of Us, PS4 Edition".

[isarai]

Did you even bother with a dictionary? Webster Dictionary defines it as - To make a new copy with sound or image improved.

Nothing more to say really just improve image quality i.e. resolution

[Neonridr]

so than any game that released simulataneously for the PS3 and PS4 can be considered a remaster based on your definition. Would you agree with that?

[isarai]

No, because then there's no "re" about it, nothing is done again, it's just another version. That's like saying a blu-ray version is a remaster of a DVD version even though both came out at the same time.

[Neonridr]

but by your definition anything with improved image quality is a remaster. Well a PS4 version of a game will have better a resolution and framerate over the PS3 version.

[isarai]

It's not MY definition, it's the official definition, you wanna argue? Call the Webster dictionary publishers/writers. Not only that but you're wrong, by the definition provided a NEW copy would have to be made, like i said before what you're talking about is a different VERSION but still part of the original set of masters. It would actually help if you knew what "Re" and a "master" actually meant, and i think that's why many people are confused.

[Neonridr]

@isarai - ok fair enough, but then after how much time do we consider a PS4 version new? a couple of months? A year?

I was merely asking to see if you firmly believed in the definition you provided or if it was just a random statement you were making. Wasn't trying to argue with you.

[Wingsfan24]

Is that really what the definition of a remaster is?

Mind=blown /s

[OB1Biker]

Exactly. The extent of improvement is another story.
And what people call 'port' have no improvement whatsoever and sometimes worse than the original.
A remake is nearly a new game just with about same story and setting but completely remade.

[F0XHOUND]

A remaster is bringing something older and inferior to something newer and superior. This transition should boost frame rate, resolution and possibly enhanced and less compressed textures and lighting etc. Movies are the same. Think blade runner.

A remake.... is a complete reconstruction. So complaining that the graphics in a remaster aren't masdively better is silly!

[NeverHeavyMan]

As you can see, complaining is what some will do regardless of evidence in front of them. Just take such terms like "cashgrab". The argument wasn't whether you find it WORTH IT to re-buy a game. It's about what the definition of a Remaster is.

Still, good to see that people like you understand what's what, here.

[JasonKCK]

I think they should be named for what they are, cash grabs.

A remaster is nothing more than a port with higher rez like GoW3, TLoU, and 3 of the 5 Halo games on MCC. Metro Redux is just a port of the PC version.

A reboot/remake is a reboot, or complete overhaul of a game like Fable, Halo Anniversary and Halo 2 MCC.

Then you have collections like MCC, Hitman, and Uncharted.

Collections and remake/reboots can be worth it if the price is right. Remasters are overpriced, and a greedy tactic used by publishers.

[F0XHOUND]

Final fantasy x HD on ps4, is a cash grab. Kingdom hearts HD remasters are fantastic and a great way to appeal to new fans and old alike. Sleeping dogs remaster, cash grab. Uncharted collection, a great way to bring a classic franchise to your latest generation of gamers who might've missed it, gears of war too.

Its a mixture, cash grabs and pretty awesome collections of games. You could argue the last of us was a cash grab, but that games so good its still doing well on ps4. So then you take cash grabs for dev greed, and cash grabs that boost ps4 sales and maintain online activity beyond the stage its original might've died if it jsfnt been remastered... so its a huge debate. Simplified, some are essential,some just aaren't! That's gaming in general lol.

[Ramser12]

Does it really matter what a remaster is. I think the real question is are you the target audience for these "remasters." I think the people these games are remastered for are people that never got the opportunity to play them before and could really care less how much of an increase in quality they are from the original and just want to experience the game. You never see people complaining when artist release anniversary albums of all their best songs, gamers like to complain about everything.

[uth11]

Yup, some artists have a ridiculous number of compilations, and have reissues and remasters for their entire back catalog. Nobody gets the pitchforks out.

The music industry has used remasters, and physical media changes every 5-10 years to keep reselling us the same albums over and over again but still not much outrage

[JasonKCK]

But there was outrage over music.

[cheameup]

I find this whole trend to be lazy and a bad sign for gaming. To me it feels like the industry is out of ideas so we'll just polish up an old successful game. I'm really suprised so many support it.

what is ps now for if its not to play the great games from PS3 ?

[isarai]

This isn't anything new, or something done more than ever, we've been getting "Remastered" games for generations, hell most of PS2s early games were slightly improved dreamcast games, and snes had a ton of improved dos and amiga games

[Azzanation]

Its easy to define. Remasters are Cash grabs.

[CantBeStopped]

A remaster is something for fanboys to fight about when they take a break from fighting about indie games.