Separate names with a comma.
No. I mean, what's the point in making them interchangeable in usages when they clearly aren't synonyms? That's why the new FFVII is classified as a remake, and a remaster, because it's built from the ground up.
This bugged me earlier too. I thought FF8 was getting a remake when it is just a remaster. Maybe it is getting a remake after 7 or something but either way the confusion ensued.
I've been bother by this for years. People refer to REmake 2 as remaster despite it being literally an entirely new game.
Glad I'm not alone on this. Somehow, this distinction is a lot more apparent in movies than video games, for a lot people.
I think most people understand the term Reboot, but Remaster and Remake tend to get used interchangeably a lot since they're both similar. Remasters just polish up graphics whereas Remakes are built from the ground up, which improved graphics are kinda a given.
But they aren't even nearly the same thing. It's like comparing a photoshopped picture to an entirely new picture.
@Big No "Remakes are built from the ground up..." Well, that contradicts the previous sentence you typed, because games being "rebuilt", instead of being dollied-up, is what separates the two terms to the point that they aren't similar (not that they ever were) in the first place. I somehow doubt most people know the difference — otherwise there wouldn't be any confusion.
@5545Trey What I mean't is that they're "similar" in that they both improve the graphics (yes I know that's a very narrow-minded view) which is what makes people think they're the same.
Most remasters don't improve graphics. They just output the same graphics in higher definition. So it still doesn't make sense.
@Big No I still find that hard to swallow. I think a better comparison would be a remake and a *reboot*, because both make significant changes to the game for easier accessibility for modern gamers.