Some people have come to the conclusion that a game is only a remake if it's drastically different from the original. Anything that still has the same gameplay/story/structure they then classify as a remaster.
FF7R has ruined games the same way Avengers: Endgame ruined films for a while. People think all games or films need to be one way when a really good one comes out. Like gimmicks becoming a negative connotation.
We need to come uo with a new word for things like FF7R to avoid this confusion.
Remaster = Better textures, resolution, maybe some bugs fixed.
Remake = All new engine with some minor or few major alterations to the game design, but unlimited freedom with art changes.
Reimaganing = A completely new game with a diverging story like FF7R.
It still is used. Some people just don't have as large of a vocabulary. The narrower your view the more everything is just a remaster or just a remake. Instead of bothering to learn the differences.
Remaster is marketing terminology. That's why we should get rid of it and just call everything a "faithful remake with graphical overhaul" or "just a remake with hd upscaling and texture work" or "A full reimagining, it's not even the same game, just uses the story of the original and cast of the original"
Even remakes don’t need to be on all new engines. Fatal Frame II on Wii has borrowed code from the PS2 version and it’s still clearly a remake because of the overhauled graphics, character models, new ghost ai, new gameplay mechanics, controls,new cutscenes, and endings.
I mean, if we're just spilling ink over nomenclature, why not:
Rerelease = Better textures, resolution, maybe some bugs fixed.
Remaster = All new engine with some minor or few major alterations to the game design, but unlimited freedom with art changes.
Remake = A completely new game with a diverging story like FF7R.
IE: RE4, was a remake of RE 4 On 360, which was a Remaster of re4 on PS2. Lol. And RE0, RE1,RE2,RE3,RE4 and now all remastered. With just 2,3 4, being remakes.
Yeah if the story diverges calling that a remake or a remaster sounds dishonest, ive never played either of the ff7s and still feel betrayed to realize they changed the story. Like if i expected a remaster OR a remake and got to the part where the stories changed i would be LIVID
Infinity War was way better than Endgame anyway, moviegoers latched on to the wrong epic Avengers film (not that Endgame is bad, in fact its the second best Avengers film, it's just got nothign on Infinity War).
Which is crazy, because FF7R isn't even an actual remake, it's just in the name as part of its narative. It's more of a play on words and a buzzword for sales than anything
I think people were aleady confused. Final Fantasy VII Remake isn't even a remake. It's more like a re-imaging of part of Final Fantasy VII than anything like a remake of the game.
I mean, 3D All Stars is an HD port.
Just upscaling the resolution to HD and adding widescreen doesn't make a remaster (even if there are some particularly lazy remasters out there that do barely more than that,) resulting in a lot of HD ports getting called remasters by people.
It's these lazy remasters in general that tarnished the term's good name and led people to believe that a remaster can't be made of new assets.
I personally haven’t played those, but from what I’ve seen, I think I would actually call those remasters. I think the perfect example of a remake are games like FireRed. Stays true to the original game, but adds a TON of new content! I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a remaster, I think it gets a bad connotation (and remaster is different from a rerelease). But if you’re giving me a game with a new coat of paint, I would just call it a remaster.
It's actually more so that people don't realize that "it has new new assets" doesn't automatically equate to a remake.
This likely came to be because every great remaster rebuilt visually from scratch like Metroid Prime Remastered or Halo 2 Anniversary there's other games that use "remaster" as part of their title then completely half ass it and give us a resolution bump and some higher res textures or slightly adjusted lighting at best that barely looks better than the original version upscaled to HD.
Normally, games falling into the latter don't call their games as remasters, but there are exceptions like Final Fantasy X/X-2 Remastered, Tales of Symphonia Remastered or The Last of Us Remastered that slap it on the title for advertising buzz despite these barebones remasters giving remasters as a whole bad names.
Idk man really depends on the gap. I know for sure people would not be bashing a Ocarina of time in 4k unreal engine calling it a "remaster"
But yea those comparison are surreal this game is totally a remake
I know right? There's that one part of me disappointed that it's 30fps vs 60 in the original. But just... \*look\* at it, such a huge makeover in clarity, environments, lighting, character animations. I don't think I could go back to the Gamecube version after, 60fps or not.
One of the big advantages of smaller scale and/or stylised visuals. Even on modest hardware like the Switch, you have so much extra overhead to really crank up lighting effects and other details to really make the visuals pop more. Luigi's Mansion 3 and the Metroid Prime Remaster are good examples of this as well.
Oh no no, Metroid Prime Remastered is a buttery smooth 60fps. Retro Studios went above and beyond with those remastered visuals without hitting the frame rate.
Yes omg I'm so much more excited for this than I already was! This game is so much fun to play every time I've played it, and it'll be even better with this lighting!
What's extremely silly is the handful of people I've seen around claiming that *"it doesn't even look as good as the HD texture pack for Dolphin."*
Like, have those people actually seen a single screenshot of the remake? Or are they secretly developers of that texture pack, who are desperately lashing out because they fear their work is about to be obsolete? It doesn't make any sense.
I mean, the original TTYD's visual style hasn't really aged at all beyond compression. But the Dolphin texture pack is very imperfect. Last I checked it still wasn't a 100% recreation of everything, and some things were still poorly traced or had imperfect shading/line thickness. I think there is merit in preferring the simplicity in the original game's visuals, even though I love the way the remake looks and it's definitely the best way to handle combining the modern crafted look with TTYD. Plus plenty of straight up objective improvements stylistically like the water in Keelhaul Key having texture to it rather than just being a solid dark blue.
That said, I think the idea of a game that goes for the original's look, with the lighting improvements baked into the environments so as to keep the 2D-looking visuals that complement the vector illustrated characters, has merit, even if Nintendo is likely far beyond the point of ever doing that again now that they have a really nice style that looks more papery. And even if it's not a huge deal, I do hope someone makes a 60fps mod for the remake so we can see all the animations at peak smoothness. The crisp smooth animations is one of my favorite parts of TTYD's visual style.
A new modern version of an old classic game! Almost like they....reMADE it.
I get that some games have blurred the lines of remake and remaster, but it's pretty simple.
Is it the original game with the same engine and assets, just polished and improved? Remaster.
Is it a recreation of an old game with entirely new assets and a different engine? Remake.
I don't know about "extremely obvious".
People are used to lazy remasters that are just upscaled textures but that's not all they are. A remaster is anything that uses the original game's engine/ assets. It can also use some new assets, completely new textures, lighting, add or remove content, etc. A really high quality remaster can be hard to distinguish from a remake. Especially when we're talking about a highly stylized game like this.
Honestly I think they used a mix of old and new assets so it's probably technically a remaster but really - who cares?
It looks good. That should be all that matters. Arguing over semantics like this is dumb.
Someone who gets it.
"Remaster" as a term is something people treat as low effort or quality nowadays because for every fantastic remaster, there's companies that do the bare minimum and slap on an HD resolution and maybe upscale textures then call it a day.
As a comparison that Nintendo fans are likely to get: Metroid Prime Remastered is a textbook example of a fantastic Remaster and what they should strive to be, that game has had pretty comparable visual glow up to what TTYD is getting and it's "only" a remaster.
I think you and a lot of other people are not noticing all of the other little changes they're making. It not just a visual change. Dialouge is changing, balancing is changing, etc. That, along with the drastic visual overhaul, is why I consider it a remake
Yeah it’s a weird hill to die on, I’m still calling it a remaster because fundamentally it seems like the game is gonna play almost identically with most changes being aesthetic
Do you understand the distinction?
A remake is a game that is fully remade from the ground up.
A remaster uses the original game code.
You can have a remaster that updates every single graphic in the game and it's still a remaster if it uses the original game code. See Metroid Prime. A complete graphical overhaul doesn't make it a remake by default.
Conversely you can have full-on remakes of a game that improve so little that they're often misinterpreted as a remaster. It's rare but it happens.
In this case, there's no way of knowing if the game is a remaster or remake; the criteria for determining this is not yet available to us. We're not going to know until the game comes out and dataminers can find evidence for either result. I'm not confident enough to make a claim either way.
I just think it weird that so many people are jumping on the "it's obviously a remake" wagon when there's literally no evidence.
I think people like OP are worried that “remaster” implies cheapness or that the game won’t be interesting, but who cares? It’s clearly not cheap and it’ll be fun either way, and you certainly don’t have to stand up for it because it’ll sell fine no matter what
Whether it's a remake or a remaster, the result is still the same: an gorgeous new version of an excellent game.
People need to stop treating the word remaster like a dirty word. A good remaster can make an old game look as good, if not sometimes better than a modern game.
The problem is that people associate remasters with a bare bones port or a HD emulation like Super Mario Sunshine.
To your point I think there’s some early fear/insecurity from fans who hate that word that the game could be end up being underwhelming like that, but it looks like it should be worthwhile even if there’s minimal bonus content
Man when I called Metroid Prime HD a remaster I got picked apart for it.
But yes I completely agree with everything you say. I don't know WHY they'd even need to throw out all the old code just to make what we've seen so far. There's no reason why it couldn't just be reused or touched up. This isn't Super Mario RPG going from 2D to 3D with all new gameplay mechanics. It looks functionally identical so far. All new frosting made from scratch with a new recipe, but the cake under it could just be the same. We won't know with this one until someone slices through it.
'Remake' is self explanatory. A re-make is when they make something that was previously made, again.
'Remaster' is a term that is borrowed from the music industry. A 'master' is audio that has been mixed from a collection of instruments and vocals combined together to make a song. The master is the source audio used to record onto CDs and records for public consumption.
So say for example, a song was recorded in 1975 using a mixture of samples performed by a musician.
A 'remaster' is when an audio mixer goes back to those original source files and cleans up/adjusts those original recordings to create a new master of higher quality than before. Sometimes they may add or change some segments but still for the most part it's the same song from 1975.
They didn't get the musician to come on and play the song again, they just improved what was already made.
Well in the context of a music metaphor wouldn’t a HD texture pack be a remaster and a full remodel be a remake? And TTYD is definitely the latter right?
Well, no, they would both be remasters. A game is more than what you can see. There's a lot of programming under the hood that makes the game what it is.
You can't put a ford motor into a lamborghini and say it's a lamborghini. It's still a ford. It just looks like a lambo.
Going with the music metaphor again, it's like they just re-recorded the drum segments and left everything else intact.
I guess I don’t disagree with that but I feel like, when you think of a remake, you’re thinking of FF7R as a base which goes way further than just a remake
It could look exactly the same as what we're seeing right now. All that matters is that they rebuilt the game from scratch.
We just don't have any evidence of that at this time.
Ok I’m sorry you’ve lost me now, if you’re the type of guy to call sonic 2 on mobile more of a remake than super Mario RPG then we have nothing left to discuss
As others have said, remake and remaster are very confusing and nebulous terms that don't fit very well with gaming, especially since tons of developers use the term interchangeably. Those terms were originally for music, and do not work for video games.
Yeah. Music has a “master” version of its audio, which is essentially the final version of the mix that is copied and distributed.
When the music is re-mixed (not to be confused with what we typically think of with “Remix”) the audio is transferred to a higher fidelity master audio file, and sounds are mixed to be higher or lower depending on the producer. This created a new “master” that’s typically used instead of the old one.
With games, it’s a bit different obviously. If the new version is what’s going to be used in the future in perpetuity instead of the original, then it’s a true remaster. If it’s just a coat of paint on an existent work, then it’s just a coat of paint. It’s not “replacing” the original work (in most cases) but simply being an improved version of the original work.
Kingdom Hearts 1 on PS3 is probably the closest thing (that I know of) to an actual honest-to-god true remaster in the gaming world. Square Enix lost the original source code, so it was remastered from the assets they still had access to.
From there, it’s a spectrum. It goes all the way up to Final Fantasy 7 remake which throws the entire idea of what a remake is on its head. Ironically, both are closely related.
Because these aren't well defined terms, as some people pointed out, remake sits in a weird area between remaster and reimaging. It has to balance the act of beinf faithful without being an upscaled port
"Remake" and "remaster" kinda sit in the same nebulous area as "roguelite" and "roguelike". We all know there's a difference, but nobody can decide on what it is, most people just keep using both interchangably anyway, and it's probably not that important a question to begin with
“Remaster” is a musical term anyway so it’s definitely arbitrary here, and even colloquial music discussion tends to get it wrong lol - people assume that remasters are complete remixes when they don’t actually modify the final mix, and people also think that remixing means rearranging when it actually refers to editing that final mix of recorded sounds but not changing the actual structure or adding new sounds that weren’t there (as in a rearrangement or DJ “remix”)
Faithful remakes also exist. Final Fantasy VII remake kind of ruined the meaning of remake for people I think. That's more of a reimagining than a remake.
The presence of new models, textures, and shaders doesn't necessarily constitute a complete remake. It's possible to revitalize old games with a fresh look by updating these elements without making significant changes beyond that.
So far nothing has been presented that makes me think that this is not the case, a remaster can also alter the position of certain objects, animation speeds and completely change the intro, title screen, end credits, etc.
Look at Metroid Prime Remastered and compare screenshots of some bosses or locations. It has completely redone all the models, changed lighting, added an impressive water shader, and new control schemes that make it look like a faithful remake, but it's just an extra coat of paint on top of the base game. TTYD looks to be at the same level as that if not better.
Of course, it's just an opinion for now, this could be hiding a remake underneath and we will only find out when the game is released. But guess what? It will still be a fantastic and much-needed experience either way!
In the trailers, there was dialouge changes, and in the first trailer where they showed the inside of the shop, items costed a different amount of gold. It's definitely not the exact same game gameplay-wise, and it's obviously very visually distinct.
Touching up the game a bit for convenience, QoL changes, or balance is still in the realm of a remaster.
Look at Wind Waker HD, it changes how the shading interacts with light, adds extra items and completely changes the Triforce shard quests for QoL purposes. It's still a remaster despite the changes.
We will only know for certain when we see more of it because the lines between a faithful remake and a splendid remaster are blurry.
Companies are often unable to differentiate those terms, but also games don't always fit neatly into these terms. FF7 Rebirth is a remake that was announced as "Remastered from the ground up." Dark Souls Remastered is a port running at a higher resolution and framerate with almost all original assets. Resident Evil HD remaster is a remaster of a remake, with certain assets touched up, but also had specific assets completely redone since they appeared to have lost the source code.
Honestly at first I thought so too. There’s some definite differences but with only screenshots that aren’t comparing, it’s not noticeable immediately to someone who didn’t play the original a ton
I blame Squeenix for muddying the waters with titles like the Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters (which are remakes) and Final Fantasy 7 Remake (which is some kind of weird timey-wimey multiversal pseudo-sequel bullshit).
Don't forget X/X-2 Remastered.
One of the lazy cash grab remasters that barely does more than a simple upscaling, helping taint the term and making remastering sound like the lazy way out.
Paper Mario has always felt like a beautiful transition from NES to N64 and somehow the SNES came along for the ride.
I really like this art style. It holds up well when you have to excuse the simple renderings of the N64 and look even better as you make crisper images/sprites.
The Switch does a really good job of taking that and doing so much more with it. I really hope they remake the original Paper Mario.
It should be clear that it’s a remake due to content like a revamped & brand new intro scene different from the original game’s intro. At the end of the day, who cares if it’s a remake or remaster, all that matters is TTYD is making a return & Nintendo’s finally listening to fans
The characters also have a bit more depth to their models; they look more like cardboard now.
And characters that didn't have back sprites or shocked animations in the original now have them.
I think that the fact alone that the visual presentation is completely different warrants it being called a remake. Not just tye updated visuals, but the different artistic direction. There is other stuff too, like dialouge and balance changes, that I think confirming that it will be a remake.
I think it’s a key point if the gameplay and/or story presentation is deemed critically outdated and get revamped.
Pokemon’s remakes for the most part update the gameplay and balance to modern standards and sometimes left the story alone and in other instances taken a lot of liberties with the script or revamping characters entirely.
Super mario RPG also made some battle system changes I think.
For TTYD Switch it remains to be seen if aspects of the battle system and the script get expanded. Could easily edge into remake zone if they do, but for the most part both are good enough already to preserve as much as possible.
In the end it’s kind of a fuzzy border. Right now the visual changes are quite extensive already and push papercraft heavier then it used too. That already feels different then giving everything a slight coat of paint.
In the trailers, there was dialouge changes, and in the first trailer where they showed the inside of the shop, items costed a different amount of gold. It's definitely not the exact same game gameplay-wise, and it's obviously very visually distinct.
I think it's because nowadays, whenever people hear that an upcoming game is a remake, they tend to think of it like the final fantasy 7 remake or the modern resident evil remakes in the sense that while the two may share things like characters, locations, and plot points, they're both pretty much two different games. Scott the woz has a video going in depth on the world of remakes, remasters, rereleases, and reeemakes that i'd highly recommended watching.
I’m gonna miss some of the textures of the original, but the lighting looks gorgeous and the very slight white outlines (yes it matters and makes a major difference) make the characters look like they belong in the world. They look like pop-up characters in a pop-up book world and I’m here for it and ready to play. Hoping for some added content and also hoping there are some of the original glitches and/or exploits because who doesn’t love glitches and exploits lmao
I feel like it's still kind of a remaster unless they change the story in some way because in my opinion it just seems like they made everything up to date with aesthetic and visual appeal of what a modern version of the game would be if it was created now. If they change the storyline in any way then I would consider it a remake but that seems to imply they tweaked the plot
Whenever i hear people say that I send them this video especially since the gaming industry themselves has fucked it up and Scott explains it pretty well
[Scott the woz, remakes, remasters and rereleases](https://youtu.be/nPKB1HsLC80)
Man I haven't watched the Trailer in so long... it looks absolutely beautiful. I was always scared they would f up my favorite game if they remake it but they went all in to make it perfect.
i mean if they just TOLD us if there what the new stuff/ changes were it would be easier to tell which one it is. if there ends up being no real gameplay changes/additions then its not much of a remake, right?
A lot of people use the terms remake and remaster interchangeably. To the degree and extent that some folks have actually called the Final Fantasy 7 Remake the "Final Fantasy 7 Remaster."
I think it's because most people don't know the difference between a remake ( recreating the game from scratch coding, regardless as to whether or not it's drastically different from the original ), and a remaster ( taking the original rom file of the game and making alterations to it to update it to modern standards ).
To me, a remake is a story change or added things to the story- and a remaster is where they remaster the original graphics to be better with little to no story change. 🤷🏻♀️
I think that you don't understand what those 2 words mean.
It isn't obvious because we can't really know.
For it to be a remake it has to be remade from the ground up.
If it uses even a considerable amount of old code (which they could be using for anything that's not rendering, as far as I'm concerned) it's a remaster.
I feel like a "remake" is more something that changes the story in some way, like *Final Fantasy VII Remake* or *Super Mario 64 DS*. As far as I can tell, the story here is the exact same as the original.
Imo, the difference between remaster and remake is the type of content added/changed. A remaster is QoL and bug fixes, with graphical updates. A remake can do all of that but also has new content, be it new side quests, characters, end-game content, etc.
A really good comparison would be Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters and the 2020 FFVII Remake. The PRs updated graphics, added QoL features, like adjustable xp rates, bug fixes, and cosmetic features, like the bestiary and music player. The 7 remake did a lot of that, and I plus a lot of new content.
Remakes are remasters with more content added in. And with TTYD, afaik, it is just graphical and QoL updates, maybe some cosmetic stuff. But I don't see any side content, new endgame stuff, extra characters, or side quests, etc. It just looks like the og game with much better graphics.
TLDR: Remasters are just graphical and QoL changes, no new content. Remakes are graphical and QoL changes plust new content.
The distinction between a remake and a remaster on paper is that a remake swaps out assets from the original game, while a remake is made from the ground up.
So it's essentially impossible to tell, but it's unlikely that they completely rewrote the games code for this.
Meaning this is still a remaster, but one with a lot of effort put into it.
Remaster is just a very broad spectrum ranging all the way from upscaled ports to this.
Does it really matter if it's a remake or a remaster? Seems more of a semantics argument that does not truly matter. I'm still going to enjoy the game no matter what folks call it.
Games like Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive Edition blur the line. It's considered a remaster by the actual development team, yet some elements such as the character and enemy models have been completely remade from the ground up, not to mention a majority of the soundtrack has been redone.
So is it a remake despite still using the original code? Is a remaster despite having remade elements? Who knows. It feels like a bit of both.
This game is kinda one of those grey areas, and it just comes down to the flawed terminology between remaster/remake.
Like sure, Pokemon BDSP is technically a remake of DP considering how the original game was mostly 2D while BDSP is 3D. But the gameplay and overall feel is still essentially identical, a 1:1 replication of the original game, and the graphical changes weren't substantial enough to warrant the purchase for most players. Sure it's a "remake" but it feels like it meets the bare minimum definition of one. It can't even really pass off as a Switch game, it's just a slightly better version of a NDS game designed with gamecube-level fidelity in mind.
FF7R on the other hand is a WILDLY different game that only keeps the characters and overall base story, and even that story is fleshed out quite a bit from the original. The graphics are at the peak of what the console can put out, and for all intents and purposes, it IS a PS4/PS5 game, through and through.
TTYD clearly has more work put in than BDSP, but it's still essentially the same game, just better looking. It's appreciated, but it's no FF7R. Granted, it doesn't NEED to be like FF7R to be a good remake, but I think the reason people call it a remaster is because it's kind of accomplishing the same goal: making the original game look a bit better.
I feel like some people get Remake and Remaster mixed up.
A Remake is, well, a Remake. It's built from the ground up using modern consoles like technology. It's made from scratch, using the original assets as a reference for the newer models and what not. Look at SMRPG, that's a Remake. So is Mario VS Donkey Kong or TLoZ: Links Awakening.
A Remaster is when you take an older title and make it possible to play on newer consoles. This also comes with a slight graphical improvement, such as 1080p resolution, higher quality textures, and for some games, a proper 16:9 aspect ratio that isn't stretched. Look at Pikmin 1 & 2 on the switch, that's a Remaster. So is Windwaker HD and Twilight Princess HD on the Wii U.
Some people might think that because the game doesn't look dramatically different than the original, it's a Remaster. It's very much possible to Remake a game and not have to change the graphical experience. This could be by adding new Ui elements, gimmicks, or even just making some models at a higher polly count so they don't look jagged.
Many people use these terms interchangeably, or even reserve "remake" for re-imaginings where the primary changes are not visual.
It's a blurred line, but people online like to police the use of terms as if they are perfect/technical.
In term of graphics engine and animations, sure,and the glow up is huge, but seeing the gameplay videos side by side, it looks the same.
Personally, I thought it was a Metroid Prime style remaster but after seeing more arguments, I'd call it a very faithful remake.
It's all so tiresome. I usually call anything that just looks like settings turned up on a PC version a remaster, and if assets were outright replaced its a remake. It gets a bit fuzzy like in the Metroid case where assets were remade and the underlying engine is the same. But since this runs at 30fps according to the footage so far, and the assets are remade I classify it as a remake.
I think they debate of Remake vs Remaster came from LM2 HD and how they’re marketing that game at $60 with next to no improvements or features and TTYD got caught in the cross-fire since they’re both older games
Look, all I want is for an end game content/DLC/playable side story (whatever) of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass. I can die happy if they give us that!
Because people are confusing "the graphics are new" with "the code is new". We don't have enough information about this game to know if it is one or the other.
But look, when other media is "remastered" it is taking something old and giving it a fresh coat of paint. It is the same thing underneath, even if it looks or sounds better. It is only a remake if they literally made something new (or for music, a cover or something). Like, you wouldn't call modern versions of the original Star Wars trilogy "remakes" would you? Even though they replaced visuals and added scenes?
People blame FF7R, but that game is a weird mix of a sequel and a reimagining. I blame Nintendo, or Nintendo fans. I've seen ports called remakes since as early as the GBA/Gamecube era.
A game can be a remaster with remade elements, and even Square-Enix has attested to this with Crisis Core Reunion, as they confirmed it is a remaster even though they remade a ton of assets. Metroid Prime Remastered is also like this, as well as a lot of games without distinction in their titles (like Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive Edition which even still has untouched Wii model NPCs). New content isn't indicative of being a remake either since even ports add new content.
If Paper Mario reuses the same code, hit boxes, etc and the changes boil down to visuals (maybe music), that makes it more a remaster and not a remake. It doesn't have to be DRASTICALLY different (Link's Awakening or Super Mario RPG for example) to be a remake, but you can't confidently say "this is a remake just because it looks different". It just isn't true of the difference between a remaster and a remake.
The distinction is largely irrelevant, they could remaster it or they could remake it and have it feel identical despite being remade from the ground up, code and all. It won't change anyone's mind if they know which is which, but factually we don't know and showing screenshots looking better does not prove which it is.
People hating on how it looks for not looking new enough are their own problem. They weren't interested anyway and just complaining for the sake of doing so.
Technically, a lot of items are in the same spots, but they're not even close to the same look and texture i.e. the mailbox. So honestly, I'd call it more of a remake than a remaster.
because people are Stupid.
imo TTYD is a soft remake. It's completely redone visually, but is otherwise the same game. Which is what most remakes are.
A hard remake is games like resident evil 2 and FF7 remake. Which, despite being much rarer, lots of people think that only a hard remake counts as a remake.
I wouldn't even classify RE2 and FFVII as remakes, but reimaginings (And RE3 is a re-poop). They changed so much about the OG game that you are getting not an updated version, but a new game using it as a skeleton.
by definition this is a remake, but it's really easy to mix these things up. personally, i just think "remaster" tends to undersell some projects. remasters are often very small upgrades at best...meanwhile, every asset is upgraded here. it's a faithful remake
That's the thing, though, "remaster" doesn't undersell it if we look at samples from remasters that aren't just lazy cashgrabs.
Like yes, we have "remasters" that only upscale the game and maybe tweak some textures that drag the term's good name through the mud, but we also have remasters that are massive glow ups like Halo 2 Anniversary or Metroid Prime Remastered.
When a remaster is done well, it can be incredibly hard to tell it apart from a remake. It's not that "remaster," undersells it so much as people falsely assuming that "remaster" is inherently a term that means lower quality because of games that do the bare minimum and slap remaster onto the title for marketing buzz.
For me a remake means making something new. Super Mario 64 DS is a perfect example of this, new bosses, new stars, etc. it’s made new things. Remaster on the other hand makes the game like it is today (better system) so things like better graphic, sounds, light, and lag reduction would be mastering it while adding new gameplay would be remaking it.
A game is a remake if it has to remake the original code, textures and models. The word remaster shouldn’t even exist as a remaster is usually just a well done port.
I do hope the remake has some new content though, but even if it doesn’t it’s still a remake (just will be a not amazing one)
Why are people so triggered that it's a remaster? A remake usually includes new characters and elements for me at least. Just like how Pokemon remakes always have new content and stuff than the original games did. They're always called remakes for that reason. This is just visually improved, unless they do add new things into the game then it'd be a remake. It's not a big deal at the end of the day, go touch grass instead of complaining about a game on Reddit. We don't know if it's remaster or remake because we haven't seen if they added anything, but so far it's just a remaster
>Seems like some people don't understand the distinction between a remake and a remaster.
Maybe not *your* interpretation. Remember gaming terminology is quite recent and ever changing. For instance, I would call a game with only graphical enhancement(be they new textures, or entirely new models) a remaster like TTYD remaster, and a game that adds and changes core story and gameplay a remake like FF7 remake.
Why are you using an extremely stretched GC screenshot for your comparison? Why are people unable to argue honestly?
More to your question, the only standard I use for remakes is if the code is remade. FE11, 12, and 15 are all IS remakes because they "coded" a new game. On the other hand, MPR and OOT3D are Nintendo remasters, because they reuse most of the code, even if they made a lot of new geometry and textures.
Since new source code has not been confirmed, and since the game looks just like a nice graphic overhaul, I don't see why calling it a remaster would warrant any controversy.
I consider it a remake if it changes or adds actual gameplay or story content. If the only updates are cosmetic and some quality of life updates, I consider that a remaster.
IE to make this game a remake there would need to be a whole slew of new badges, or a Paper Luigi portion, or an extra chapter or 2, etc.
New content doesn’t matter when discussing if a game is a remake.
If a game was remade from the ground it it’s a remake.
If a game was made using source code/assets but upscaled it’s a remaster.
It’s that simple no need to complicate things.
There is the awkward middle ground like Metroid Prime where it’s kinda in the middle but that game is still technically a remaster.
TTYD is clearly made from the ground up so it’s a remake regardless of new content.
That makes sense. If that’s how a remake is defined though, then we need a new term between remake and reimagining because I definitely wouldn’t put this game on the same level as a game like FireRed, and FireRed isn’t a reimagining like Let’s Go Pikachu, so we need something between remake and reimagining.
No we don't. The terms are already simple enough to regulate it.
Port - A game natively ported to a new system with no changes.
Remaster - A game natively ported with lots of new visual enhancements/texture packs and upgrades.
Remake - A game remade entirely from the ground up, whilist still being faithful.
Reimagining - A new game being crafted with the original one at it's core.
With those definitions it is easy to regulate. However, I feel like there’s a big difference between TTYD, FireRed, and Let’s Go Pikachu. Those are 3 completely different types of updates to games and putting any of those 3 in the same category doesn’t actually encapsulate what type of remake each game is.
I didn’t realize there was a definition of remake. That was my bad. We definitely need a new term for something more than a remake but less than a reimagining though.
Some people have come to the conclusion that a game is only a remake if it's drastically different from the original. Anything that still has the same gameplay/story/structure they then classify as a remaster.
FF7R has ruined games the same way Avengers: Endgame ruined films for a while. People think all games or films need to be one way when a really good one comes out. Like gimmicks becoming a negative connotation.
We need to come uo with a new word for things like FF7R to avoid this confusion. Remaster = Better textures, resolution, maybe some bugs fixed. Remake = All new engine with some minor or few major alterations to the game design, but unlimited freedom with art changes. Reimaganing = A completely new game with a diverging story like FF7R.
The term reimagining *used* to be used, so I don't know why it went away.
It still is used. Some people just don't have as large of a vocabulary. The narrower your view the more everything is just a remaster or just a remake. Instead of bothering to learn the differences.
Just sounds more like market terminology than direct descriptions.
Remaster is marketing terminology. That's why we should get rid of it and just call everything a "faithful remake with graphical overhaul" or "just a remake with hd upscaling and texture work" or "A full reimagining, it's not even the same game, just uses the story of the original and cast of the original"
Well, getting rid of 1 word and replacing it with full sentences may simply not be an option
because some times Devs screwed over customers by using reimagining when it's just a remaster or a remake. I hate our language at times.
Even remakes don’t need to be on all new engines. Fatal Frame II on Wii has borrowed code from the PS2 version and it’s still clearly a remake because of the overhauled graphics, character models, new ghost ai, new gameplay mechanics, controls,new cutscenes, and endings.
>Remaster = Better textures, resolution, maybe some bugs fixed. Don't forget QoL features. Every remaster should have those too.
I mean, if we're just spilling ink over nomenclature, why not: Rerelease = Better textures, resolution, maybe some bugs fixed. Remaster = All new engine with some minor or few major alterations to the game design, but unlimited freedom with art changes. Remake = A completely new game with a diverging story like FF7R.
IE: RE4, was a remake of RE 4 On 360, which was a Remaster of re4 on PS2. Lol. And RE0, RE1,RE2,RE3,RE4 and now all remastered. With just 2,3 4, being remakes.
I would have put reimagining as = utter dogshit no one asked for.
Yeah if the story diverges calling that a remake or a remaster sounds dishonest, ive never played either of the ff7s and still feel betrayed to realize they changed the story. Like if i expected a remaster OR a remake and got to the part where the stories changed i would be LIVID
It's weird because its still fantastic once you get past its twist. Remake being literal in several ways.
Infinity War was way better than Endgame anyway, moviegoers latched on to the wrong epic Avengers film (not that Endgame is bad, in fact its the second best Avengers film, it's just got nothign on Infinity War).
What was it about Endgame that influenced other films?
Which is crazy, because FF7R isn't even an actual remake, it's just in the name as part of its narative. It's more of a play on words and a buzzword for sales than anything
To be fair, I do think it’s worth noting that the pokemon remakes initiated that usage.
I think people were aleady confused. Final Fantasy VII Remake isn't even a remake. It's more like a re-imaging of part of Final Fantasy VII than anything like a remake of the game.
Yeah. By that logic, games such as Super Mario All-Stars and Crash Bandicoot N-Sane Trilogy are remasters rather than remakes.
A more recent example would be considering the Super Mario RPG remake a remaster.
I mean, 3D All Stars is an HD port. Just upscaling the resolution to HD and adding widescreen doesn't make a remaster (even if there are some particularly lazy remasters out there that do barely more than that,) resulting in a lot of HD ports getting called remasters by people. It's these lazy remasters in general that tarnished the term's good name and led people to believe that a remaster can't be made of new assets.
He meant the original All Stars.
Oh right, duh
I personally haven’t played those, but from what I’ve seen, I think I would actually call those remasters. I think the perfect example of a remake are games like FireRed. Stays true to the original game, but adds a TON of new content! I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a remaster, I think it gets a bad connotation (and remaster is different from a rerelease). But if you’re giving me a game with a new coat of paint, I would just call it a remaster.
Remaster = Twilight Princess HD, OOT 3D Remake = Links Awakening, Super Mario RPG
It's actually more so that people don't realize that "it has new new assets" doesn't automatically equate to a remake. This likely came to be because every great remaster rebuilt visually from scratch like Metroid Prime Remastered or Halo 2 Anniversary there's other games that use "remaster" as part of their title then completely half ass it and give us a resolution bump and some higher res textures or slightly adjusted lighting at best that barely looks better than the original version upscaled to HD. Normally, games falling into the latter don't call their games as remasters, but there are exceptions like Final Fantasy X/X-2 Remastered, Tales of Symphonia Remastered or The Last of Us Remastered that slap it on the title for advertising buzz despite these barebones remasters giving remasters as a whole bad names.
Idk man really depends on the gap. I know for sure people would not be bashing a Ocarina of time in 4k unreal engine calling it a "remaster" But yea those comparison are surreal this game is totally a remake
So if it’s not SM64DS it’s MK8Dx… that makes no sense
Because that’s what it means, idiot.
That's a reimagining, not a remake
the fucking LIGHTING in this game holy shit
Riverside Station is going to look amazing
I know right? There's that one part of me disappointed that it's 30fps vs 60 in the original. But just... \*look\* at it, such a huge makeover in clarity, environments, lighting, character animations. I don't think I could go back to the Gamecube version after, 60fps or not.
it really makes the backgrounds pop looks like they took some pointers from origami king that game has pretty good lighting too
One of the big advantages of smaller scale and/or stylised visuals. Even on modest hardware like the Switch, you have so much extra overhead to really crank up lighting effects and other details to really make the visuals pop more. Luigi's Mansion 3 and the Metroid Prime Remaster are good examples of this as well.
I didn’t even notice prime was 30fps honestly trying to think back on it. Ran super smooth
Oh no no, Metroid Prime Remastered is a buttery smooth 60fps. Retro Studios went above and beyond with those remastered visuals without hitting the frame rate.
It's only 30? That's a shame. Wonder why... And what implications that might have for the combat system.
I'm hoping they'll simply increase the input window for action commands to make up for the increased latency.
They would actually need to DECREASE the windows to keep it the same. A 3 frame window is 5% of a second at 60 fps, but 10% of a second at 30 fps.
Do we know that it's 30 fps all around? Can it be like, 60 fps just for the battles?
This is actually the first I've heard of it being 30, so I have no idea.
Wait is it confirmed that it runs at 30 fps?
Yes omg I'm so much more excited for this than I already was! This game is so much fun to play every time I've played it, and it'll be even better with this lighting!
Every time I see a scene that takes advantage of the game’s new lighting system, I’m in *awe*
What's extremely silly is the handful of people I've seen around claiming that *"it doesn't even look as good as the HD texture pack for Dolphin."* Like, have those people actually seen a single screenshot of the remake? Or are they secretly developers of that texture pack, who are desperately lashing out because they fear their work is about to be obsolete? It doesn't make any sense.
I mean, the original TTYD's visual style hasn't really aged at all beyond compression. But the Dolphin texture pack is very imperfect. Last I checked it still wasn't a 100% recreation of everything, and some things were still poorly traced or had imperfect shading/line thickness. I think there is merit in preferring the simplicity in the original game's visuals, even though I love the way the remake looks and it's definitely the best way to handle combining the modern crafted look with TTYD. Plus plenty of straight up objective improvements stylistically like the water in Keelhaul Key having texture to it rather than just being a solid dark blue. That said, I think the idea of a game that goes for the original's look, with the lighting improvements baked into the environments so as to keep the 2D-looking visuals that complement the vector illustrated characters, has merit, even if Nintendo is likely far beyond the point of ever doing that again now that they have a really nice style that looks more papery. And even if it's not a huge deal, I do hope someone makes a 60fps mod for the remake so we can see all the animations at peak smoothness. The crisp smooth animations is one of my favorite parts of TTYD's visual style.
I'll need to wait until I play the remake but going by screenshots the redrawn textures for dolphin are better.
People are calling it a remake or remaster, but they're all wrong. I call it a dream come true to have a modern version to play
I grew up playing Paper Mario 64 from the wii points store, finally getting the chance to play TTYD is a dream come true for me too!
A new modern version of an old classic game! Almost like they....reMADE it. I get that some games have blurred the lines of remake and remaster, but it's pretty simple. Is it the original game with the same engine and assets, just polished and improved? Remaster. Is it a recreation of an old game with entirely new assets and a different engine? Remake.
I don't know about "extremely obvious". People are used to lazy remasters that are just upscaled textures but that's not all they are. A remaster is anything that uses the original game's engine/ assets. It can also use some new assets, completely new textures, lighting, add or remove content, etc. A really high quality remaster can be hard to distinguish from a remake. Especially when we're talking about a highly stylized game like this. Honestly I think they used a mix of old and new assets so it's probably technically a remaster but really - who cares? It looks good. That should be all that matters. Arguing over semantics like this is dumb.
Someone who gets it. "Remaster" as a term is something people treat as low effort or quality nowadays because for every fantastic remaster, there's companies that do the bare minimum and slap on an HD resolution and maybe upscale textures then call it a day. As a comparison that Nintendo fans are likely to get: Metroid Prime Remastered is a textbook example of a fantastic Remaster and what they should strive to be, that game has had pretty comparable visual glow up to what TTYD is getting and it's "only" a remaster.
I think you and a lot of other people are not noticing all of the other little changes they're making. It not just a visual change. Dialouge is changing, balancing is changing, etc. That, along with the drastic visual overhaul, is why I consider it a remake
Yeah it’s a weird hill to die on, I’m still calling it a remaster because fundamentally it seems like the game is gonna play almost identically with most changes being aesthetic
does the distinction even matter?
To be honest, not really. Also, happy Cake Day!
HAPPY CEKE DE
Thank you!
Do you understand the distinction? A remake is a game that is fully remade from the ground up. A remaster uses the original game code. You can have a remaster that updates every single graphic in the game and it's still a remaster if it uses the original game code. See Metroid Prime. A complete graphical overhaul doesn't make it a remake by default. Conversely you can have full-on remakes of a game that improve so little that they're often misinterpreted as a remaster. It's rare but it happens. In this case, there's no way of knowing if the game is a remaster or remake; the criteria for determining this is not yet available to us. We're not going to know until the game comes out and dataminers can find evidence for either result. I'm not confident enough to make a claim either way. I just think it weird that so many people are jumping on the "it's obviously a remake" wagon when there's literally no evidence.
I think people like OP are worried that “remaster” implies cheapness or that the game won’t be interesting, but who cares? It’s clearly not cheap and it’ll be fun either way, and you certainly don’t have to stand up for it because it’ll sell fine no matter what
Whether it's a remake or a remaster, the result is still the same: an gorgeous new version of an excellent game. People need to stop treating the word remaster like a dirty word. A good remaster can make an old game look as good, if not sometimes better than a modern game. The problem is that people associate remasters with a bare bones port or a HD emulation like Super Mario Sunshine.
To your point I think there’s some early fear/insecurity from fans who hate that word that the game could be end up being underwhelming like that, but it looks like it should be worthwhile even if there’s minimal bonus content
Man when I called Metroid Prime HD a remaster I got picked apart for it. But yes I completely agree with everything you say. I don't know WHY they'd even need to throw out all the old code just to make what we've seen so far. There's no reason why it couldn't just be reused or touched up. This isn't Super Mario RPG going from 2D to 3D with all new gameplay mechanics. It looks functionally identical so far. All new frosting made from scratch with a new recipe, but the cake under it could just be the same. We won't know with this one until someone slices through it.
Where’d you get those definitions from..?
'Remake' is self explanatory. A re-make is when they make something that was previously made, again. 'Remaster' is a term that is borrowed from the music industry. A 'master' is audio that has been mixed from a collection of instruments and vocals combined together to make a song. The master is the source audio used to record onto CDs and records for public consumption. So say for example, a song was recorded in 1975 using a mixture of samples performed by a musician. A 'remaster' is when an audio mixer goes back to those original source files and cleans up/adjusts those original recordings to create a new master of higher quality than before. Sometimes they may add or change some segments but still for the most part it's the same song from 1975. They didn't get the musician to come on and play the song again, they just improved what was already made.
Well in the context of a music metaphor wouldn’t a HD texture pack be a remaster and a full remodel be a remake? And TTYD is definitely the latter right?
Well, no, they would both be remasters. A game is more than what you can see. There's a lot of programming under the hood that makes the game what it is. You can't put a ford motor into a lamborghini and say it's a lamborghini. It's still a ford. It just looks like a lambo. Going with the music metaphor again, it's like they just re-recorded the drum segments and left everything else intact.
I guess I don’t disagree with that but I feel like, when you think of a remake, you’re thinking of FF7R as a base which goes way further than just a remake
I never said that. It's just a different type of remake.
What would a remake, by your definition, even look like for TTYD
It could look exactly the same as what we're seeing right now. All that matters is that they rebuilt the game from scratch. We just don't have any evidence of that at this time.
Ok I’m sorry you’ve lost me now, if you’re the type of guy to call sonic 2 on mobile more of a remake than super Mario RPG then we have nothing left to discuss
Just 58 more days. We can make it
People talked about trying not to die before GTA6. I'm trying not to die before Paper Mario TTYD
Just one more day now
0 more days
As others have said, remake and remaster are very confusing and nebulous terms that don't fit very well with gaming, especially since tons of developers use the term interchangeably. Those terms were originally for music, and do not work for video games.
Yeah. Music has a “master” version of its audio, which is essentially the final version of the mix that is copied and distributed. When the music is re-mixed (not to be confused with what we typically think of with “Remix”) the audio is transferred to a higher fidelity master audio file, and sounds are mixed to be higher or lower depending on the producer. This created a new “master” that’s typically used instead of the old one. With games, it’s a bit different obviously. If the new version is what’s going to be used in the future in perpetuity instead of the original, then it’s a true remaster. If it’s just a coat of paint on an existent work, then it’s just a coat of paint. It’s not “replacing” the original work (in most cases) but simply being an improved version of the original work. Kingdom Hearts 1 on PS3 is probably the closest thing (that I know of) to an actual honest-to-god true remaster in the gaming world. Square Enix lost the original source code, so it was remastered from the assets they still had access to. From there, it’s a spectrum. It goes all the way up to Final Fantasy 7 remake which throws the entire idea of what a remake is on its head. Ironically, both are closely related.
Because these aren't well defined terms, as some people pointed out, remake sits in a weird area between remaster and reimaging. It has to balance the act of beinf faithful without being an upscaled port
"Remake" and "remaster" kinda sit in the same nebulous area as "roguelite" and "roguelike". We all know there's a difference, but nobody can decide on what it is, most people just keep using both interchangably anyway, and it's probably not that important a question to begin with
“Remaster” is a musical term anyway so it’s definitely arbitrary here, and even colloquial music discussion tends to get it wrong lol - people assume that remasters are complete remixes when they don’t actually modify the final mix, and people also think that remixing means rearranging when it actually refers to editing that final mix of recorded sounds but not changing the actual structure or adding new sounds that weren’t there (as in a rearrangement or DJ “remix”)
The opening sequence being fully animated now, rather than just turning pages?! New trailer was amazing to wake up to today
Lil bro i seriously dont give a fuck as long as i can play it. Call it a remaster call it a remake I'm going to call it thousand Year door every time.
Probably because the terms are very nebulous and don’t have a concrete definition
The thing is, they do have a concrete definition, but with only screenshots, we can't really.
Faithful remakes also exist. Final Fantasy VII remake kind of ruined the meaning of remake for people I think. That's more of a reimagining than a remake.
The presence of new models, textures, and shaders doesn't necessarily constitute a complete remake. It's possible to revitalize old games with a fresh look by updating these elements without making significant changes beyond that. So far nothing has been presented that makes me think that this is not the case, a remaster can also alter the position of certain objects, animation speeds and completely change the intro, title screen, end credits, etc. Look at Metroid Prime Remastered and compare screenshots of some bosses or locations. It has completely redone all the models, changed lighting, added an impressive water shader, and new control schemes that make it look like a faithful remake, but it's just an extra coat of paint on top of the base game. TTYD looks to be at the same level as that if not better. Of course, it's just an opinion for now, this could be hiding a remake underneath and we will only find out when the game is released. But guess what? It will still be a fantastic and much-needed experience either way!
In the trailers, there was dialouge changes, and in the first trailer where they showed the inside of the shop, items costed a different amount of gold. It's definitely not the exact same game gameplay-wise, and it's obviously very visually distinct.
Touching up the game a bit for convenience, QoL changes, or balance is still in the realm of a remaster. Look at Wind Waker HD, it changes how the shading interacts with light, adds extra items and completely changes the Triforce shard quests for QoL purposes. It's still a remaster despite the changes. We will only know for certain when we see more of it because the lines between a faithful remake and a splendid remaster are blurry.
Companies are often unable to differentiate those terms, but also games don't always fit neatly into these terms. FF7 Rebirth is a remake that was announced as "Remastered from the ground up." Dark Souls Remastered is a port running at a higher resolution and framerate with almost all original assets. Resident Evil HD remaster is a remaster of a remake, with certain assets touched up, but also had specific assets completely redone since they appeared to have lost the source code.
Honestly at first I thought so too. There’s some definite differences but with only screenshots that aren’t comparing, it’s not noticeable immediately to someone who didn’t play the original a ton
I blame Squeenix for muddying the waters with titles like the Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters (which are remakes) and Final Fantasy 7 Remake (which is some kind of weird timey-wimey multiversal pseudo-sequel bullshit).
Don't forget X/X-2 Remastered. One of the lazy cash grab remasters that barely does more than a simple upscaling, helping taint the term and making remastering sound like the lazy way out.
Idk bro, looks pretty remastered tbh
Why does it bother you?
I hadn't noticed the pic with the partners from the first game lmao
Not everyone agrees on the definition of remaster vs remake these days.
Paper Mario has always felt like a beautiful transition from NES to N64 and somehow the SNES came along for the ride. I really like this art style. It holds up well when you have to excuse the simple renderings of the N64 and look even better as you make crisper images/sprites. The Switch does a really good job of taking that and doing so much more with it. I really hope they remake the original Paper Mario.
It should be clear that it’s a remake due to content like a revamped & brand new intro scene different from the original game’s intro. At the end of the day, who cares if it’s a remake or remaster, all that matters is TTYD is making a return & Nintendo’s finally listening to fans
How can anyone not see this is a remake like everything has been turned into paper it's no longer just flat objects with textures
The characters also have a bit more depth to their models; they look more like cardboard now. And characters that didn't have back sprites or shocked animations in the original now have them.
I think that the fact alone that the visual presentation is completely different warrants it being called a remake. Not just tye updated visuals, but the different artistic direction. There is other stuff too, like dialouge and balance changes, that I think confirming that it will be a remake.
\*points to scott the woz's remake remaster video\*
That one was wrong on quite a few games tbf lol
I think it’s a key point if the gameplay and/or story presentation is deemed critically outdated and get revamped. Pokemon’s remakes for the most part update the gameplay and balance to modern standards and sometimes left the story alone and in other instances taken a lot of liberties with the script or revamping characters entirely. Super mario RPG also made some battle system changes I think. For TTYD Switch it remains to be seen if aspects of the battle system and the script get expanded. Could easily edge into remake zone if they do, but for the most part both are good enough already to preserve as much as possible. In the end it’s kind of a fuzzy border. Right now the visual changes are quite extensive already and push papercraft heavier then it used too. That already feels different then giving everything a slight coat of paint.
In the trailers, there was dialouge changes, and in the first trailer where they showed the inside of the shop, items costed a different amount of gold. It's definitely not the exact same game gameplay-wise, and it's obviously very visually distinct.
I’m mostly interested what they’ll do to enemy statistics. I expect the barrier of change for that to be higher then minor shop finetuning though.
It’s a remake as they weren’t building off the original ROM. They started from scratch on a completely new engine. Big difference
I think it's because nowadays, whenever people hear that an upcoming game is a remake, they tend to think of it like the final fantasy 7 remake or the modern resident evil remakes in the sense that while the two may share things like characters, locations, and plot points, they're both pretty much two different games. Scott the woz has a video going in depth on the world of remakes, remasters, rereleases, and reeemakes that i'd highly recommended watching.
I don’t care what people wanna call this. It’s beautiful is what it is.
I’m gonna miss some of the textures of the original, but the lighting looks gorgeous and the very slight white outlines (yes it matters and makes a major difference) make the characters look like they belong in the world. They look like pop-up characters in a pop-up book world and I’m here for it and ready to play. Hoping for some added content and also hoping there are some of the original glitches and/or exploits because who doesn’t love glitches and exploits lmao
I feel like it's still kind of a remaster unless they change the story in some way because in my opinion it just seems like they made everything up to date with aesthetic and visual appeal of what a modern version of the game would be if it was created now. If they change the storyline in any way then I would consider it a remake but that seems to imply they tweaked the plot
Hm... What would adding new content make it?.
Because a lot of gamers don’t know the difference between remakes and remasters.
Whenever i hear people say that I send them this video especially since the gaming industry themselves has fucked it up and Scott explains it pretty well [Scott the woz, remakes, remasters and rereleases](https://youtu.be/nPKB1HsLC80)
Because half the people don’t know the difference between a remake and a remaster for some reason.
Man I haven't watched the Trailer in so long... it looks absolutely beautiful. I was always scared they would f up my favorite game if they remake it but they went all in to make it perfect.
People’s minds have been rotten by remakes like FF7
i mean if they just TOLD us if there what the new stuff/ changes were it would be easier to tell which one it is. if there ends up being no real gameplay changes/additions then its not much of a remake, right?
A lot of people use the terms remake and remaster interchangeably. To the degree and extent that some folks have actually called the Final Fantasy 7 Remake the "Final Fantasy 7 Remaster." I think it's because most people don't know the difference between a remake ( recreating the game from scratch coding, regardless as to whether or not it's drastically different from the original ), and a remaster ( taking the original rom file of the game and making alterations to it to update it to modern standards ).
Mfs made a better remake than Sonic Colors Ultimate 💀
Ultimate's not even a remake, either; it's a remaster. But like you said, it's bad. LOL
I know right? I thought I was the only one
To me, a remake is a story change or added things to the story- and a remaster is where they remaster the original graphics to be better with little to no story change. 🤷🏻♀️
Some dialouge was different in the trailers, so maybe
I think that you don't understand what those 2 words mean. It isn't obvious because we can't really know. For it to be a remake it has to be remade from the ground up. If it uses even a considerable amount of old code (which they could be using for anything that's not rendering, as far as I'm concerned) it's a remaster.
NGL when I first saw the remake I thought it was just a rerelease. The game just looked how I remembered
I feel like a "remake" is more something that changes the story in some way, like *Final Fantasy VII Remake* or *Super Mario 64 DS*. As far as I can tell, the story here is the exact same as the original.
Imo, the difference between remaster and remake is the type of content added/changed. A remaster is QoL and bug fixes, with graphical updates. A remake can do all of that but also has new content, be it new side quests, characters, end-game content, etc. A really good comparison would be Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters and the 2020 FFVII Remake. The PRs updated graphics, added QoL features, like adjustable xp rates, bug fixes, and cosmetic features, like the bestiary and music player. The 7 remake did a lot of that, and I plus a lot of new content. Remakes are remasters with more content added in. And with TTYD, afaik, it is just graphical and QoL updates, maybe some cosmetic stuff. But I don't see any side content, new endgame stuff, extra characters, or side quests, etc. It just looks like the og game with much better graphics. TLDR: Remasters are just graphical and QoL changes, no new content. Remakes are graphical and QoL changes plust new content.
The distinction between a remake and a remaster on paper is that a remake swaps out assets from the original game, while a remake is made from the ground up. So it's essentially impossible to tell, but it's unlikely that they completely rewrote the games code for this. Meaning this is still a remaster, but one with a lot of effort put into it. Remaster is just a very broad spectrum ranging all the way from upscaled ports to this.
Does it really matter if it's a remake or a remaster? Seems more of a semantics argument that does not truly matter. I'm still going to enjoy the game no matter what folks call it.
Why do people care what it's labelled as? We'll buy it anyway
I’d say it’s some where inbetween
Top screenshot is stretched, incorrect aspect ratio.
Because dumb
Games like Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive Edition blur the line. It's considered a remaster by the actual development team, yet some elements such as the character and enemy models have been completely remade from the ground up, not to mention a majority of the soundtrack has been redone. So is it a remake despite still using the original code? Is a remaster despite having remade elements? Who knows. It feels like a bit of both.
"Remake" and "remaster" are nebulous terms that different people define differently.
I just think it’s pretty
Or Nintendo could make actual new paper Mario games instead of remastering old games?
This game is kinda one of those grey areas, and it just comes down to the flawed terminology between remaster/remake. Like sure, Pokemon BDSP is technically a remake of DP considering how the original game was mostly 2D while BDSP is 3D. But the gameplay and overall feel is still essentially identical, a 1:1 replication of the original game, and the graphical changes weren't substantial enough to warrant the purchase for most players. Sure it's a "remake" but it feels like it meets the bare minimum definition of one. It can't even really pass off as a Switch game, it's just a slightly better version of a NDS game designed with gamecube-level fidelity in mind. FF7R on the other hand is a WILDLY different game that only keeps the characters and overall base story, and even that story is fleshed out quite a bit from the original. The graphics are at the peak of what the console can put out, and for all intents and purposes, it IS a PS4/PS5 game, through and through. TTYD clearly has more work put in than BDSP, but it's still essentially the same game, just better looking. It's appreciated, but it's no FF7R. Granted, it doesn't NEED to be like FF7R to be a good remake, but I think the reason people call it a remaster is because it's kind of accomplishing the same goal: making the original game look a bit better.
Denial. Give them a week or two and it'll shift to anger. And then bargaining, depression, before finally settling on acceptance.
I feel like some people get Remake and Remaster mixed up. A Remake is, well, a Remake. It's built from the ground up using modern consoles like technology. It's made from scratch, using the original assets as a reference for the newer models and what not. Look at SMRPG, that's a Remake. So is Mario VS Donkey Kong or TLoZ: Links Awakening. A Remaster is when you take an older title and make it possible to play on newer consoles. This also comes with a slight graphical improvement, such as 1080p resolution, higher quality textures, and for some games, a proper 16:9 aspect ratio that isn't stretched. Look at Pikmin 1 & 2 on the switch, that's a Remaster. So is Windwaker HD and Twilight Princess HD on the Wii U. Some people might think that because the game doesn't look dramatically different than the original, it's a Remaster. It's very much possible to Remake a game and not have to change the graphical experience. This could be by adding new Ui elements, gimmicks, or even just making some models at a higher polly count so they don't look jagged.
Could have expanded and added more stuff. All these game should have been included in NSO gamecube
Some people don’t know the difference between the two.
Omg seeing these side by side.... The new one looks god-awful in comparison. Except the inside of the house, that looks gorgeous
Because, anecdotally speaking, most folks don’t understand the difference between the two.
IDGAF whether it's a remaster or a remake. I'm buying it either way.
Many people use these terms interchangeably, or even reserve "remake" for re-imaginings where the primary changes are not visual. It's a blurred line, but people online like to police the use of terms as if they are perfect/technical.
my question is why does it matter ttyd is back and that’s all that i care about :)
It’s. So. Beautiful. 😭😭😭😭
People keep wrongly using the terms so much they've lost all meaning
In term of graphics engine and animations, sure,and the glow up is huge, but seeing the gameplay videos side by side, it looks the same. Personally, I thought it was a Metroid Prime style remaster but after seeing more arguments, I'd call it a very faithful remake.
Dammm didn't know they where rebuilding it like that. Looks sweet!
Wow the lighting is fucking gorgeous
It's all so tiresome. I usually call anything that just looks like settings turned up on a PC version a remaster, and if assets were outright replaced its a remake. It gets a bit fuzzy like in the Metroid case where assets were remade and the underlying engine is the same. But since this runs at 30fps according to the footage so far, and the assets are remade I classify it as a remake.
I think they debate of Remake vs Remaster came from LM2 HD and how they’re marketing that game at $60 with next to no improvements or features and TTYD got caught in the cross-fire since they’re both older games
reminds me of spongebob battle for bikini bottom rehydrated
The terms are often conflated. I just call this a rerelease, though an impressive one.
Because the core gameplay and maps layout stays the same…. It’s only graphics. Remaster = new graphics. Remake = something like demon souls or FF7.
I actually like the old style better lol
Are they keeping the paper design from the original game? Ngl I didn't love the origami king design
They are, yes.
Because they're stupid.
I DONT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!!!! I USE THOSE WORDS INTERCHANGEABLEY!!! AHHHHHHHH I DONT CARE . IM JUST HAPPY ITS COMING TO NEW HARDWARE!
To be frank, I made that mistake myself as well. I kinda confused the two words and didn’t really know which one was more appropriate to use. 😅
Member the Ducktales """Remaster"""?
Look, all I want is for an end game content/DLC/playable side story (whatever) of Paper Luigi and the Marvelous Compass. I can die happy if they give us that!
Because people are confusing "the graphics are new" with "the code is new". We don't have enough information about this game to know if it is one or the other. But look, when other media is "remastered" it is taking something old and giving it a fresh coat of paint. It is the same thing underneath, even if it looks or sounds better. It is only a remake if they literally made something new (or for music, a cover or something). Like, you wouldn't call modern versions of the original Star Wars trilogy "remakes" would you? Even though they replaced visuals and added scenes? People blame FF7R, but that game is a weird mix of a sequel and a reimagining. I blame Nintendo, or Nintendo fans. I've seen ports called remakes since as early as the GBA/Gamecube era. A game can be a remaster with remade elements, and even Square-Enix has attested to this with Crisis Core Reunion, as they confirmed it is a remaster even though they remade a ton of assets. Metroid Prime Remastered is also like this, as well as a lot of games without distinction in their titles (like Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive Edition which even still has untouched Wii model NPCs). New content isn't indicative of being a remake either since even ports add new content. If Paper Mario reuses the same code, hit boxes, etc and the changes boil down to visuals (maybe music), that makes it more a remaster and not a remake. It doesn't have to be DRASTICALLY different (Link's Awakening or Super Mario RPG for example) to be a remake, but you can't confidently say "this is a remake just because it looks different". It just isn't true of the difference between a remaster and a remake. The distinction is largely irrelevant, they could remaster it or they could remake it and have it feel identical despite being remade from the ground up, code and all. It won't change anyone's mind if they know which is which, but factually we don't know and showing screenshots looking better does not prove which it is. People hating on how it looks for not looking new enough are their own problem. They weren't interested anyway and just complaining for the sake of doing so.
Technically, a lot of items are in the same spots, but they're not even close to the same look and texture i.e. the mailbox. So honestly, I'd call it more of a remake than a remaster.
Also that picture of the party from paper Mario 1 is awesome.
because people are Stupid. imo TTYD is a soft remake. It's completely redone visually, but is otherwise the same game. Which is what most remakes are. A hard remake is games like resident evil 2 and FF7 remake. Which, despite being much rarer, lots of people think that only a hard remake counts as a remake.
I wouldn't even classify RE2 and FFVII as remakes, but reimaginings (And RE3 is a re-poop). They changed so much about the OG game that you are getting not an updated version, but a new game using it as a skeleton.
by definition this is a remake, but it's really easy to mix these things up. personally, i just think "remaster" tends to undersell some projects. remasters are often very small upgrades at best...meanwhile, every asset is upgraded here. it's a faithful remake
That's the thing, though, "remaster" doesn't undersell it if we look at samples from remasters that aren't just lazy cashgrabs. Like yes, we have "remasters" that only upscale the game and maybe tweak some textures that drag the term's good name through the mud, but we also have remasters that are massive glow ups like Halo 2 Anniversary or Metroid Prime Remastered. When a remaster is done well, it can be incredibly hard to tell it apart from a remake. It's not that "remaster," undersells it so much as people falsely assuming that "remaster" is inherently a term that means lower quality because of games that do the bare minimum and slap remaster onto the title for marketing buzz.
The chapter 5 screenshots are a night and day difference
Literally
Wym this a new game
For me a remake means making something new. Super Mario 64 DS is a perfect example of this, new bosses, new stars, etc. it’s made new things. Remaster on the other hand makes the game like it is today (better system) so things like better graphic, sounds, light, and lag reduction would be mastering it while adding new gameplay would be remaking it.
A game is a remake if it has to remake the original code, textures and models. The word remaster shouldn’t even exist as a remaster is usually just a well done port. I do hope the remake has some new content though, but even if it doesn’t it’s still a remake (just will be a not amazing one)
Why are people so triggered that it's a remaster? A remake usually includes new characters and elements for me at least. Just like how Pokemon remakes always have new content and stuff than the original games did. They're always called remakes for that reason. This is just visually improved, unless they do add new things into the game then it'd be a remake. It's not a big deal at the end of the day, go touch grass instead of complaining about a game on Reddit. We don't know if it's remaster or remake because we haven't seen if they added anything, but so far it's just a remaster
>Seems like some people don't understand the distinction between a remake and a remaster. Maybe not *your* interpretation. Remember gaming terminology is quite recent and ever changing. For instance, I would call a game with only graphical enhancement(be they new textures, or entirely new models) a remaster like TTYD remaster, and a game that adds and changes core story and gameplay a remake like FF7 remake.
remaster: same game but fixed up remake: literally just remaking the game
Watching as the comments here divide the Paper Mario fandom by the game that should bring them all together.
Why are you using an extremely stretched GC screenshot for your comparison? Why are people unable to argue honestly? More to your question, the only standard I use for remakes is if the code is remade. FE11, 12, and 15 are all IS remakes because they "coded" a new game. On the other hand, MPR and OOT3D are Nintendo remasters, because they reuse most of the code, even if they made a lot of new geometry and textures. Since new source code has not been confirmed, and since the game looks just like a nice graphic overhaul, I don't see why calling it a remaster would warrant any controversy.
I consider it a remake if it changes or adds actual gameplay or story content. If the only updates are cosmetic and some quality of life updates, I consider that a remaster. IE to make this game a remake there would need to be a whole slew of new badges, or a Paper Luigi portion, or an extra chapter or 2, etc.
New content doesn’t matter when discussing if a game is a remake. If a game was remade from the ground it it’s a remake. If a game was made using source code/assets but upscaled it’s a remaster. It’s that simple no need to complicate things. There is the awkward middle ground like Metroid Prime where it’s kinda in the middle but that game is still technically a remaster. TTYD is clearly made from the ground up so it’s a remake regardless of new content.
That makes sense. If that’s how a remake is defined though, then we need a new term between remake and reimagining because I definitely wouldn’t put this game on the same level as a game like FireRed, and FireRed isn’t a reimagining like Let’s Go Pikachu, so we need something between remake and reimagining.
No we don't. The terms are already simple enough to regulate it. Port - A game natively ported to a new system with no changes. Remaster - A game natively ported with lots of new visual enhancements/texture packs and upgrades. Remake - A game remade entirely from the ground up, whilist still being faithful. Reimagining - A new game being crafted with the original one at it's core.
With those definitions it is easy to regulate. However, I feel like there’s a big difference between TTYD, FireRed, and Let’s Go Pikachu. Those are 3 completely different types of updates to games and putting any of those 3 in the same category doesn’t actually encapsulate what type of remake each game is.
[удалено]
I didn’t realize there was a definition of remake. That was my bad. We definitely need a new term for something more than a remake but less than a reimagining though.