Well, seems like you have made up your mind. Have a good one 
My mind isnāt made up, Iām just giving you the facts. That is all I can do. Iāve given you plenty of concrete modern examples that prove my point through actual game titles and releases, whereas all you have is a vague Wikipedia entry and videos by unofficial sources with no backing to officially define words.
Iām sorry but remake and remaster just donāt work the way you think they do. Everyone applies a different meaning to them and the line between the two either doesnāt exist or is so blurry that it doesnāt matter if it does.
Until some big wig in the video game industry decides to put time and money into officiating the terminology, theyāre fancy buzzwords that may as well be interchangeable. Square Enix and Capcom certainly seem to think they are interchangeable.
Duck Tales: Remastered is another example of a remaster that had some changes to story and gameplay elements. Last of Us remaster added some controller remapping elements to the PS4 version, with PS4 controller specific features. I hadnāt played these myself, but a simple google search does show that in gaming, remaster doesnāt mean no changes except to graphics and audio. Even Tony Hawk that VV did had some small gameplay changes, though I have seen both remaster and remake be used with that game.
I assume people are going to pour in to tell you that in those cases itās āOKā because they ādidnāt change enoughā. To which the question then becomes: OK, so what is enough?
Where exactly is the hypothetical line in the sand between remake and remaster?
There isnāt one. Itās subjective. Some people think remaster means no changes at all except to graphics. Some think it can include some changes. Some think it can include a LOT of changes.
Remakes suffer the same issue.
They all ready stated what it was in interviews. Its a remake with updated graphics and some QoL changes.
Once everyone gets their high on nostalgia it might get boring and they may add more stuff who knows.
Hm, so itās a remake now, is it? Thatās interesting.
I believe Iāve just had my point completely proven for me, and unintentionally to boot.
I think the biggest distinction is when the game structure itself is different. Iāve used this example before, but a little known RPG franchise, and my second favorite gaming franchise as a whole (FF is my first) is Wild Arms. The original game is a PS1 cult classic rpg predating FF7, and had a remake on the PS2. The remake, while sticking mostly true to the original story, had some new story elements, new playable characters, system mechanics from WA2 and WA3, new areas, puzzles, tools and gameplay elements, remixed abilities (characters were downsized in their old ability list to give to new playable characters), etc. That is what a remake does, remakes everything from the ground up, utilizing elements from the original game mixed with new elements.
Maybe! But then I can think of plenty of games officially labeled and advertised as remakes that donāt rebuild the game from the ground up. And plenty of remasters that do just that.
Case in point that guy who just replied to the thread calling this game (D2R) a remake even though the Devs call it a remaster. They canāt even keep the terms straight in their heads.
You can try to apply whatever meaning you want to the words, but fact is the industry doesnāt care one bit. Remake and remaster are fancy words to make you hype.
Exactly.
Just because someone uses the wrong terminology, your point is proven?
Well, i have provided proof of wikipedia, the dictionary, CBR, techradar also has a similar article. There are countless youtube videos aswell explaining the difference. There are also many games who have set the right terminology. FF7 Remake for instance, Skyrim Remaster is another one.
I donāt think the gaming industry can redefine the definition of remaster and remake, as the definition fits the genre just fine.
But i can agree with the confusion, since some companies use the terminology wrongfully.
Remaster means to āimproveā something. Define āimproveā.
Except that, once again, your dictionary quote does not talk about video games at all, and your Wikipedia link is super vague and unsourced. And your videos are not from official sources in the game industry who can actually say āthe words mean this, and only this, now go homeā.
Soā¦ no, you donāt have a point, sorry. The only thing youāre proving is that:
- People donāt agree on the terminology,
- Except when it suits their needs and suddenly there is a correct definition.
This is not the current case with D2R though. Things such as skill balancing, a charm inventory, instanced loot, stacking runes/gems,skill hotbar, and most of the other common QoLs that have been asked by Blizzard themselves, do not qualify as being remade from the ground up. It is still the same game running underneath, with the same gameplay you know and love. Now can some of this stuff change the feel of the game? Sure, but is it enough to say the game is completely remade into a new game? Nope.
I think that is the biggest distinction in this. Square-Enix is pretty varied on their remasters, but most of the time, they do update some mechanics and have additional content (Such as FFXII remaster being able to take a second job board, along with the usual fastfoward speed modifier common to their FF remasters) Still the same game, it hasnāt been āremadeā but just has additional content, qol and balancing.
When a remaster and remake has the same definition in music, in pictures and in movies, but for gaming, it should mean something completely different? mkay. Like i said before, you have made up your mind. By the way, you donāt have to buy me coffee, im just trying to reason with you.
They got the terminology right on FFX and FFX-II aswell. HD Remaster.
They got it right with the terminology on D2R too.
Remaster : Theyāre enhancing the quality of the game.
In a sense it is, once a game is changed it no longer classifies as a remaster. So basically, the game is already a remake.
Yup, though they were technically remasters of the International Versions instead of the vanilla release. So to Western gamers, new content such as advanced sphere grid and dark aeons in X, and the monster capture feature of X-2, along with some of the newer balancing in X-2 (the catnip got a nerf from vanilla if I remember correctly). The Last Mission too from X-2, and of course new content just for the remaster in the form of the audio drama continuing the story post x-2.
It should tell you something that the same company simultaneously āuses the words rightā for some games but āuses the words wrongā for other games.
Itās as if the words donāt have official meanings!
And yes, they bloody right should have different definitions, because video games as a medium are not the same thing as movies and recordings.
A recording is enjoyed the same way regardless of if you remake or remaster it. You still LISTEN to it. Your interaction vector with the recording does not change.
For a movie, same thing. You WATCH. Your interaction vector with the movie has not changed. So itās easy to quantify, in those two cases, what is a remaster and what is a remake.
Games, by their very nature, can change the very way you have to enjoy and approach them. A remade or remastered game can require you to interact with it completely differently than the original, beyond just āyou PLAY itā.
Due to this, the words cannot be used the same way.
If you believe that sense with what we already have, it still invalidates the arguments from the purist side of ābuuut buuut mah remaster!ā
So basically you are saying that VV mislabeled D2R as a remaster when it is in fact a remake?
That ANY change to how the game feels is where you trace the line in the sand?
But they call it a remaster though.
I donāt agree with core gameplay changes, but still, technically, it is already a remake per definition.
But ofcourse that can be argued upon since the current changes are very very small.