What does it mean to remaster a game?

[Crystallas]

Guess what time it is? Rant time. Sorry if I've done this one before, but the reminder is more constant now than any time in the past.


Pet peeve. Using the word remaster incorrectly. My business is based around engineering, electronic, audio, and business engineering. Over the last three decades, I have done a lot of remastering and restoration work with photographs, audio, video, and coding(nerd alert, no shit, I know). In the last decade, the terms have started to lose meaning that were held for many many generations, well before any living human being was alive.

Just last month, a customer wanted me to "remaster" a song they made in 1991, paid me before hand, and then when I wanted to get the original media, they sent me the tracker file. I explained that I needed the original recording to do it, explained the whole thing, no surprises. So what did they want? They wanted me to enhance their copy of the song. Enhancing =/= remastering. I told them this, I explained they need the master, to re-master. Then this client got upset, did not want to acknowledge that their music was enhanced, as if enhanced is a dirty word. This happens all the time now, and it's understandable that someone gets confused. These words are thrown around like nothing. But don't act like that woman who wears a size 18, trying to fit into a size 8 out of her own utter denial. If you want your master recordings of whatever it is, re-mastered, then put 2 and 2 together.

A master, is the original recording. Thus, the master copy. Remastering means, you take the original recording to transfer it to another medium.

When artists started remastering, it was a clean transfer from the original recordings to new media formats. ie: Original photograph positive on wax treated paper, then taking the master negative, and developing on velox or newer paper. Originally released on vinyl, then released on CD. Originally released on a 16mm projector reel, then VHS, then on DVD. etc. On top of that, you have remastering AND restoring. So you could take the artifacts in the masters, and with many methods, edit/filter them out. This is specifically termed digitally remastering when done with computers(including the most simple of computers that may not even resemble a workstation PC).


A remake is a remake, not a remaster. Even if you remade the whole thing to look exactly like the original, it is not a remaster. Then it is a recreation, not a remake. ie: DuckTales Remastered is not remastered. It is recreated, not even frame perfect or the same engine physics. Even the audio is recreated. Not a single part of the game is remastered. But for whatever reason, the term is marketable and synonymous with being this big upgrade. So naturally, they want to capitalize on the term, and blur the lines as much as possible to use it. It's a shame, because at some point the confusion will begin to take away from great remakes and recreations, all over semantics. Category errors cause confusion. Like selling dolphin meat as tuna. Does it have anything to do with how dolphin meat tastes? No. It means the product is dishonest.

Why it bothers me? Other that muddying the waters with poor language and skewing the terms from its original meaning. Some games, and a lot of media can be remastered. How the hell are you going to know the difference between a remastered release of anything, versus being a recreation or a remake influenced by the original? A lot of games exist that I would LOVE to see remastered. But it seems like now, we will need to specify new terms to explain when a true remaster is released. And audio, video, new 4K, 5K, 8K, HFR standards. Yes, this is going to be an utter mess, unless assholes like me remind others why any of this matters. At least with true remasters, then you can honestly claim preservation of the original works(in the case originals get lost or destroyed, an issue that even the maintainers at the internet archive admit is now happening when we once believed digitalization would store a copy of everything after the fact).

When is it accurate to describe a game as remastered? Well the working sprites and models for the games are nearly always compressed and reduced from their original resolution/polygon counts to work within the framework of hardware. So you can simply release the original, uncompressed sprites and models, then further enhance those models, and it would be accurate to call it a remastered game. Patch the source code, and use modern compilers to run on new hardware and/or take advantage of new hardware limits. This would also be completely within bounds of remastering.

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/02/11-videogame-hd-remasters-before-and-after.html
11 games, ONE is actually remastered from the original files(not influenced by, but actually using the original master files). Yes, Capcom seems to be the worst culprit. And the author of the article misuses the term, not the game developers and publishers in most of the cases here.

Whatever. I know I'm going to lose this argument to those who have adopted their own baseless definition, and like the way the phrase "remaster" sounds, opposed to remade, recreated, enhanced. In due time, remaster will mean shit.

 

[ijustposthere]

You are up way too early on a Saturday for coherent thought. Unless you haven't slept, like me, LOL. Honestly, never really thought about it. I just took it to mean they re-did the game from the ground up. Can you really apply the term to have the same meaning as it would with an audio recording? Can you truly re-master a video game? I have no clue what really goes into making the original, let alone how they would re-master it.

 

[Crystallas]

LOL. I was up working, but yes, you can remaster a video game. Long ass post from me, IKR. I explain what would an example of true remastering look like in the 3rd from last paragraph "When is it accurate to describe a game as remastered?"

 

[Novak]

Mental health professionals are often called "shrinks" in reference to "head shrinkers". Several carribian Native American tribes used to have a process for boiling human skulls and causing them to shrink. The term came in US public usage in the 1940's as a euphanism for psychiatrists.

I get your rant but it's just a word. And words mean other words. We say words to mean other words which leads us to saying more words. Pretty sure it's a scam. :dunno:

 

[ijustposthere]

LOL. I was up working, but yes, you can remaster a video game. Long ass post from me, IKR. I explain what would an example of true remastering look like in the 3rd from last paragraph "When is it accurate to describe a game as remastered?"

Not sure how, but I skipped that paragraph. Normally I'm a very astute reader. But, yeah, I still have mostly no clue what really goes into making the game itself LOL. I did study it a little bit in my college days, but I was terrible at it, and haven't thought about it since. Now, I just hope I enjoy the game more than anything. Sorry, I know this isn't the response you were probably looking for, but to answer your question, if the game is good, I don't care how it got there. They do their job, I give them money and play LOL.

 

[Crystallas]

Mental health professionals are often called "shrinks" in reference to "head shrinkers". Several carribian Native American tribes used to have a process for boiling human skulls and causing them to shrink. The term came in US public usage in the 1940's as a euphanism for psychiatrists.

I get your rant but it's just a word. And words mean other words. We say words to mean other words which leads us to saying more words. Pretty sure it's a scam. :dunno:

Then words mean nothing. Whether other terms have been skewed in the past, is just that, the past. But this one not only can be saved, but also carries a very specific meaning that has an important role in record preservation and archiving throughout many forms of media. I went on my rant in hopes to open up some eyes. Mainly because all recordings degrade over time, even digital just via a different concept than analog. To me, it's important to keep records accurate. Not just video games. Remakes, recreations, reinterpretations, all are good, welcome, and I like many of these more than their originals. The word remaster should not be thrown around loosely. It's not like a shrink.

One day you'll want to play, watch, listen to something from the past that you really cherished, had fond memories of, and when buying a modern copy, your choices will be to buy something fairly different that calls itself a remaster, or hunt down the original. If it was a true remaster, then yay, everyone wins. Otherwise, it's just riding on a name, to sell a product, without the product itself being any good. Much like if a cover band recorded a song by your favorite artist, and the label sold the song as a remastered copy of the original from the original band. Hyperbole? I'm not so sure when looking at some of these games that are being termed as remastered. It's a form of historical archive revisionism, not linguistic evolution.

 

[Crystallas]

Not sure how, but I skipped that paragraph. Normally I'm a very astute reader. But, yeah, I still have mostly no clue what really goes into making the game itself LOL. I did study it a little bit in my college days, but I was terrible at it, and haven't thought about it since. Now, I just hope I enjoy the game more than anything. Sorry, I know this isn't the response you were probably looking for, but to answer your question, if the game is good, I don't care how it got there. They do their job, I give them money and play LOL.

If the game is good, I don't care either. But my point is that the term shouldn't be thrown around inaccurately. If the game is good, the publisher does not need to mislead customers(few, many, whatever number it may be).

 

[ijustposthere]

If the game is good, I don't care either. But my point is that the term shouldn't be thrown around inaccurately. If the game is good, the publisher does not need to mislead customers(few, many, whatever number it may be).

I just think the vast majority are more like me. We have basically no clue what goes into the game itself, so as long as the game looks better, the remaster term is accurate. What else can you describe it as if you're trying to re-sell an old game on a new gen?

 

[Crystallas]

I just think the vast majority are more like me. We have basically no clue what goes into the game itself, so as long as the game looks better, the remaster term is accurate. What else can you describe it as if you're trying to re-sell an old game on a new gen?

If you have a master recording(artwork, code, models, audio, video), and transfer those masters to a different media, then yes, you have remastered the work. Otherwise, simply using the name and recreating it, is not a remaster. This is where the usage has gone terribly wrong.

If you sell an old game on a new gen, most publishers(except Capcom doing it twice, and game-bloggers using terms they do not understand), have sold them as high-resolution remakes, HD remakes, enhanced, etc. So it's really not that confusing.

Grim Fandango Remastered was a true remaster. Resident Evil or DuckTales Remaster, were not. Outside of those examples, you'll see publishers are careful with terminology, and if they ever use the term remaster, it will not be in the title. They use remaster in the context of the specific part of the game that was remastered, like the audio from the voice over work was remastered. Not the whole game.

 

[ijustposthere]

True, I guess remake would work, but it really doesn't have the pizazz as remastered. I mean from a pure marketing standpoint, it makes sense to use the word to get the most sells. And I think it works. Not only that, with digital recordings and movies, the definition of remastered is easier to understand. For games, it seems more difficult.

IDK, I'm just speaking from my point of view where I can grasp what it means to remaster an album, or remaster a movie, but when it comes to remastering a game, I'm lost because its more difficult for me, as a laymen, to know all that making a game originally entails. I tend to take it at face value, mostly because putting something on a different gen machine tends to need to utilize a new gaming engine. Maybe that's why I have a hard time understanding the difference.

 

[Crystallas]

So if someone sells a game you like, calls it remastered, and its a fairly different game(with the reasoning that they had to remake the game from the ground up). That's okay with you because it's easier to grasp?

Let's try this approach. So understanding how most games are made, and putting the game engine aside. Let's go back 15 years or so. The developers built the entire un-named hypothetical game(we'll call it game-X) using models that use around 500 polygons per character and textures that were originally 1024x1024px in resolution. But in order for the games to run on the hardware at the time, the models were scaled to 80 polygons and the textures were scaled to 128x128px of resolution. Of course, this reduced quality significantly, but it still looked amazing at the time of release.

(option A) The game has a huge following, enough demand to release the game with the original models and textures. This of course would make the game look significantly better, as well as modern hardware having no issue rendering the game for play. This kind of release also would keep the game in tact to its original. It is, by any certification of the word, a remastered version of the game.

(option B) The developers decide to rebuild the entire game. The game plays differently, the input response, controls, appearance, and even some storyline elements are changed. None of the original artwork is used, except enhanced versions of the most iconic logos and objects/characters in the game. Even though nothing was retained from the master copy, they decide to mislead the biggest fans of this game into thinking the game is basically the same, but on a new platform by selling it as remastered. The game is still good, but it's clearly not the same game mechanics, hit detection is different, and the feel and environment are not true to the original.

So if you call both remastered... how does the consumer know the difference? Strictly by word of mouth? Especially hardcore fans of the original who are looking forward to playing the game again on a modern system. Isn't option B just watering down the meaning of remastered? Not rhetorical questions.

 

[ijustposthere]

I don't think I said it was okay, I just wouldn't honestly know the difference unless the game was vastly different. Right now, the only game I can draw on is Oddworld New n Tasty. It's not a remaster. I only know that because they said it wasn't. The game is essentially the same, aside from a few more additions. Same gameplay, same levels, etc. If they would've called it a remaster, I would've thought it was a remaster, and the game is so similar to the original that I wouldn't have even thought about it.

I really don't think the average consumer is going to be able to tell the difference from a remastered or remade game. It's just like, "it looks better, it must be what they say." There's no doubt I fall into this ignorance, even though I play a pretty solid amount of games, and I think most companies will use the term because it makes the game sound better. I think the distributors know that, and I think in your example, the consumer would have essentially no clue until they played the game. The only possible way to protect yourself as a consumer against this is to do your research, which I do, but I'll probably pay closer attention if I come across such a situation now because of this thread.

So far, the only games I've bought as remade are Last of Us Remastered, God of War, and Oddworld. Oddworld, in all the reviews and info I came across before purchase, explicitly stated the game was not a remaster, and was essentially a new game with the original platform as a guide. The Last of Us, I never played the original, so I really didn't care. God of War, honestly, if I bought the game and it was changed, I probably would've been pissed.

And stop making me think when I'm trying to drink LOL. Good stuff though, no doubt.

 

[MassHavoc]

Need a TL: DR... hahah

Anyway, maybe it's been answered already, but you are over-thinking this in your original post, you are looking at the term from a technical point of view, and if engineers were the ones re-releasing them then you'd be correct and it's be appropriately titled, but unfortunately it's the publishers that are doing this and they are using these terms as marketing tools not as an illustration of what has actually been done. It's simply a carry over from other industries where things have been remastered and the terminology has been working into the common mans idiot lexicon.

 

[Crystallas]

Need a TL: DR... hahah

Anyway, maybe it's been answered already, but you are over-thinking this in your original post, you are looking at the term from a technical point of view, and if engineers were the ones re-releasing them then you'd be correct and it's be appropriately titled, but unfortunately it's the publishers that are doing this and they are using these terms as marketing tools not as an illustration of what has actually been done. It's simply a carry over from other industries where things have been remastered and the terminology has been working into the common mans idiot lexicon.

I know, it was a long rant. A series of rants. But if you want to skip the biggest stuff, re-read my reply in post #11. Then respond to the question in the end.

 

[MassHavoc]

I know, it was a long rant. A series of rants. But if you want to skip the biggest stuff, re-read my reply in post #11. Then respond to the question in the end.

In my response I think you could apply that to post 11 as well. They don't care. It's marketing, they can call it remastered, remastered gold. It's all the same to them as long as idiots think the conotation of what remastered means still applies... oooOOoOo Remastered, must have, that sounds magically good.

 

[Crystallas]

In my response I think you could apply that to post 11 as well. They don't care. It's marketing, they can call it remastered, remastered gold. It's all the same to them as long as idiots think the conotation of what remastered means still applies... oooOOoOo Remastered, must have, that sounds magically good.

Okay, so what do you call a true remaster then, after the term has been watered down to the point it is meaningless. Also to the point where the content owners or original works no longer see a reason to release a true remaster of a loved game, because it has become meaningless?

 

[MassHavoc]

Okay, so what do you call a true remaster then, after the term has been watered down to the point it is meaningless. Also to the point where the content owners or original works no longer see a reason to release a true remaster of a loved game, because it has become meaningless?

Honestly. I don't care. It's all marketing. If people really wanted the true game they'd just ask them to re-release it. I don't buy into any of that buzz word shit and look at the description of the game features, additons, changes, ect. and decide if it's worth buying, which most of the time it still isn't because games love to live off the nostalgia of yesteryear when we loved them, and now adays just like movie remakes, most of them are shit anyway. If they've done enough to the game to interest me in buying it then great, otherwise most of it is just marketing.

Is there a specific game you have in mind that is bringing this to light? I'm thinking maybe homeworld?

 

[Crystallas]

Honestly. I don't care. It's all marketing. If people really wanted the true game they'd just ask them to re-release it. I don't buy into any of that buzz word shit and look at the description of the game features, additons, changes, ect. and decide if it's worth buying, which most of the time it still isn't because games love to live off the nostalgia of yesteryear when we loved them, and now adays just like movie remakes, most of them are shit anyway. If they've done enough to the game to interest me in buying it then great, otherwise most of it is just marketing.

Is there a specific game you have in mind that is bringing this to light? I'm thinking maybe homeworld?

I saw an article, as mentioned in an earlier post with a journalist skewing specific words. You might not care, but I do. Like I can run around calling you some slur, but then claim it is a good word... "Oh no, I meant phat, with a P" At least on the internet and in text, you can make that distinction! LOL

DuckTales and Resident Evil aren't remastered. Homeworld Remastered makes some case because it uses the unaltered engine recompiled for new hardware to go along with the remake.

 

[xer0h0ur]

Far too many words for such a simple topic. They just fucking updated the graphics. That is it. Christ. Get a life.

 

[Crystallas]

Far too many words for such a simple topic. They just fucking updated the graphics. That is it. Christ. Get a life.

It is a big part of my life, which is why I notice it. I work with remastering media for a good chunk of my livelihood, also why my rants are wordy because I'm a subject matter expert.

They aren't updated graphics, that wouldn't be a remaster. That would be updated graphics or remade or recreated graphics.