Re-Confusing Types of Games

"What are these?"

It's no secret that some people are still getting confused when it comes to terminology of certain category of games: re-releases, remasters and remakes. Despite how many titles got one of these treatments in a last few years, definitions are not as clear in public eyes as they should've been. That's really strange in my opinion, but I guess that's just how it is because I don't think I can actually explain this phenomenon...

What I can (and decided to) go instead is write about these games and share my perspective on what each type means, as well as my opinion regarding these releases in general.

Re-release.

This one should be simple, even though sometimes re-release gets called a "remaster". At title implies, it's literally a re-release of a old game in a way it was released originally. Great example of basic re-release would be the ones from GOG where they work on the game directly by implying certain fixes and patches (sometimes using the ones made by community) in order to make game work on modern machines in modern resolutions. Otherwise they'll use some type of program or emulator (such as DOSBox) with very simple setup options.

Speaking of using external means to make old games playable, Nightdive Studios releases and Nerve Software's classic DOOM ports are another example of re-releases, but this time with usage of different engine (or whatever it should actually be called) with codebase of original games... Well, kind of. When it comes to DOOM ports, those re-release were based on another port for Xbox 360 and later DOOM 3: BFG Edition. DOOM 64's re-release and Blood: Fresh Supply were based on Doom64EX and Blood EX. And while DOOM 64 is (nearly) perfect, other examples still carry some inconsistencies with original games, but they're slowly fixing it... Except for Blood, because Atari doesn't care.

Re-releases are great and sometimes actually better than remasters. I already mentioned original DOOM games, but there're many other examples (like Wolfenstein 3D, first two Warcraft games and original Diablo) where I think remastering is just simply wouldn't work. I believe that some games are just "too old" or "classic" to get visual and gameplay enhancements as that would alter them to a point where those games lose what makes them so great. So standard port/using emulation and/or specific software feels more right in this case. Even so-called "HD versions" of games are more of a re-releases than a remasters to me as there're essentially no real changes in their visuals.

Remaster.

The most notable difference from re-release are new graphics. Some gameplay twicks and quality of live options are also included in previous type of games, so I don't think its fair to attribute that solely to remasters. Even though they're some common here, I think. Much like previously mentioned cases, it's actually more often that new release would be created on different engines from those that were used by original titles. However, they still use original game as either base or reference for their work in order to stay true to them.

Of course, audio is some getting some enhancements and the purpose of the remasters is the same as re-releases: preservation of original games. Sometimes it's done great, but sometimes... Well, I already talked a lot about the current state of Warcraft 3. Even though I said good things about Crash Bandicoot N. Sane Trilogy in that post, it's worth pointing out that Crash's movement is slightly different from original games: remaster unified a specific controls across all three games (the one from Warped, if I'm correct). Which is actually bad for some stages in the first title as levels were designed for another different kind of jumping that Crash had originally. I also believe that the option to switch to the original graphics should be obligatory to every remaster for greater authenticity, not just some of them.

Overall, remasters are a good way to introduce modern players to some great games they previously would've overlooked for trivial reasons, such as graphics. They also could serve as a nice gift to the fans of beloved title that bring it back into the spotlight... if done right. Staying true to the original in its every aspect is the key for the great remaster, as you might know already at this point. If might be harder to do in certain cases, but developers should try their best and don't set the wrong goals for their works by altering the game for no reason.

Remake.

Those are totally new games based on older titles. Not just different engine or art style, but also gameplay, story/lore and all that kind of stuff. It's like to close to reboots and their reinventions of specific game series, but remakes tend to be slightly more recognizable when compared to the originals like Final Fantasy VII Remake... if you know what I'm talking about. Another more recent examples would be Resident Evil 2 and 3 that seems to be more closer to the fourth entry gameplay-wise (at least to someone like me, who's not really familiar with the franchise).

Understandable, remakes can allow themselves to bring various changes to all aspects of the game as it's entirely different product from the original games. Going back to Resident Evil, many people expressed their dissatisfaction with the third remake. Specifically how it changed the personality of its protagonist Jill Valentine and presentation of the Nemesis. While its hard for me to judge this as I simple haven't played the original game and remake (nor watched it on YouTube), with given examples from those people I can easily see this issue and how it makes the remake a more inferior experience in comparison to the original.

In all honestly, I just don't really understand the point of remakes. You know, some people complain a lot about developers laziness when they do another re-release and remaster, but remakes seems like the laziest approach of the bunch. After looking at the provided examples in this post, I've noticed this anomaly where keeping older game the way it was is often more harder for the developers than "reinventing the wheel" with remakes. So... Why not just create a new game instead at this point? It's not to say that all remakes are terrible by default: Black Mesa seems nice for what it is. However, with all due respect, if I would want to play Half-Life again, I'm going to reinstall Half-Life.

If anything, it actually slightly worries me that remakes could result in what I would call a "Disney effect" in reference to how some of their cartoons completely overshadowed the original books they were based on. Perhaps in that case it was for the best as I definitely haven't read any of them, I think remakes could go directly against preservation of classic titles... Like, again... Even though it's more of a between "re-release" and a remaster, just look at Warcraft 3: Reforged.