- Hey, y'all. Scott here. Have always wanted to be a remake, being a better version of my
past self, maybe in HD or 3D. I always base my decisions
off of what Crest does but that, of course, means
sacrifices are in order. I can't just go and remake
the entirety of my life in 3D without the budget going through the roof. So I have to start cutting content. (playful music) (clattering) Yes, a new game console. I can't wait to play
the latest and greatest. Don't look at me. Every single piece of
thing has people saying that things were better back then. World War II? (bleep) that. It's all about the classics. To achieve a greater
appreciation of a medium in its entirety, it's almost required to look back at where it was years prior but sometimes that can
be an absolute nightmare. Access to older media may not be as readily available as the newer stuff and that older stuff just may
not have aged all too well which is why old media is
sometimes reborn in a new age, retooled to be more easily accessible, remade to re-engineer
that original piece of art into what it was always meant to be. Just kidding. It's for money. Remakes, remasters, re-releases. This is the best investment
I've made all year. Some may say these are
all products of a lack of new ideas and creativity. The sentence is over. Remaking things has
been a thing ever since the inception of things and the
core concept of it is great. Let's take a movie, for example, that may have been held
back due to the time in which it was made, maybe
due to budget constraints or lackluster special effects. Take that old movie and improve it. Like a lot of films from
the silent era were remade once sound was an option. But now remakes of films
aren't necessarily done to improve a film. Rather they're just easy
ways to make a quick buck. See, I recognize those three words. I should see that. Oh man, I recognize these words too. I should do this. Video games, however, generally are a bit of a different story. The act of releasing
is more of a necessity than a cash grab, mostly. Taking old games and making
them available in modern times. Now this can range from
taking the original game and simply making it
playable on a new platform, this is the saddest type
of before and after, all the way to a from the
ground up reconstruction of the game, rethinking the entire thing and redesigning it with modern standards and audiences in mind. Now the core concept of the
remake, remaster, re-release has changed drastically over time. The games that were once called remakes are now considered remasters, which have since been re-released and have been ported to other consoles. I've had it up to here with words. In fact, I'd argue each era of
gaming had a re-release trend until all types of them just
wouldn't stop happening, like right now. Let's look back at
re-releases throughout history so we can actually
figure out which is what and what is which. Of course, one of the first
examples of the re-release was taking arcade games and translating them to home consoles. Here's "Pac-Man" and here's
somebody trying their best. Back in the late 70s, early 80s, video game consoles just
weren't powerful enough to replicate arcade titles, so developers had to remake
the game from scratch to work on the desired hardware. Some of these games
are decent conversions. "Space Invaders" was pretty
spot on on Atari 2600, so was "Pong", "Centipede",
they did the job. But then you had "Donkey Kong". Nice tagline. Of course, as game consoles
became more and more advanced, they could handle arcade
games much more smoothly. Back in the 80s, re-releases boiled down to just putting the same arcade games on whatever hardware they could. A console's out? We're sure that we can
squeeze "Berzerk" on it. The Atari 2600 version of these games were just a means to play
them if you had a 2600. Same goes for most other
platforms at the time. The developers knew these
home console releases weren't the definitive versions. When new hardware would come out, they would release a new
version of the game for them. It was just to make these games
as accessible as possible. When we reached the NES
and Sega Master system, most arcade games that the
Atari 2600 looked at you funny when you ask it to play actually played pretty competently here. But as home consoles gained more power, the arcades were them much
further ahead of them. Here we have "Strider" in the arcades and then the horror. That's why you had upgrade even
further to the Sega Genesis and Super Nintendo. The quality was much more
in line with what you'd want out of arcade games in the home. So arcade games weren't necessarily remade from the ground up for
some of these consoles. Many times they were ports, a game made for one thing,
brought over to another. I consider ports to fall
under the re-release banner if they released a good while
after the initial launch. And they maybe downgraded
or feature added content but they're basically the same game. Yep, the 16-bit generation
was where we started to see far more true-to-the-source
material re-releases. However, it was also one
of the first major times we started to get full remakes
of older console games. Now, true remakes weren't
really all too popular at this point in gaming. What was there to remake? You know, with a bit more
polish, that has potential. Sure, good games had to be
remade to run on the Atari 2600 and various PC games were remade and re-released on home consoles or on PC again, but home console-wise, this was a huge step forward when it came to taking previous titles and remastering the graphics and sound and potentially even adding content to bring these classics
into the modern light. Of course, one of the best examples of this is "Super Mario All-Stars", a compilation of full 16-bit remakes of the four 8-bit "Super
Mario Brothers" titles. They added the ability
to save your progress, little extra details here
and there were thrown in, new animations, the sprite
work was completely redone to look the part of a new SNES game. These don't look like old NES titles. This looks like it belongs here. Some people prefer the
"Mario All-Stars" versions of these games compared to the originals, but I prefer the original NES games. "I'm more of a purist," I say, as I wiped the snot from my nose. I love "All Stars", but the physics are just different enough
to make me actually hate it. "Mario All-Stars" was
incredibly influential and, in my opinion, set the standard for video
game remakes and re-releases. The idea of compiling old games and selling them as new games, that was genius and terrifying. I own 12 copies of "Mario 1". This game really did pave the way for remakes in the 16-bit
era and in general. "Megaman: The Wily Wars" was a remake of the first three "Megaman" titles on NES for the Sega Genesis. Now, "Wily Wars" is a little
more rough around the edges compared to "Mario All-Stars", but it's still a neat little package and they actually added an unlockable mode where you can utilize abilities
from all three of the games. And there's "Ninja Gaiden
Trilogy" on the SNES. Man, they're the same games. The music was updated to be more SNES-y, but the graphics, yeah. Hey, 1995, 1991 called. It's really weird for me to
see games on SNES cartridges that just don't look like SNES games. Like by (bleep), it's "Space
Invaders" on Super Nintendo. The original game came out in 1978. Now it's 1994, bitches. (beeping) I got to check the calendar. Remakes and re-releases on
SNES were generally remastered like "Mario All-Stars", but
remakes and re-releases on SNES didn't happen very frequently. They happened, no doubt, but
they did some weird ones. They remained "Tetris" and
"Dr. Mario" from the NES. Why? Sure, it's two games in one but these are remastered
version of NES games. Why didn't they just make
new versions of these games? They're puzzle games. It's like reusing bread. It's strange considering the
SNES couldn't play NES games. You'd think Nintendo
would capitalize on that and re-release more of their stuff, especially after how well
"Mario All-Stars" did. I looked in the mirror. I'm not a 130 year old Japanese company. I don't know what I'm talking about. In the background though, the handhelds were an
entirely different story. With portable gaming being a
good bit behind console gaming, many developers discovered
it would be pretty hard to bring their games over without huge amounts of sacrifices, but it would all be worth it due to being able to play
these games on the go for the first time ever. Having to remake a game for
far worse hardware, yes, that is considered a de-make and handhelds would get them all the time. Yeah, I wish I could never
play "Street Fighter 2" on Game Boy again, but hey,
it's cheaper to on the go. Maybe four more times. These early de-makes for
handhelds would lay the groundwork for handheld remakes to come. Sometimes, if not most of the time, they would be lacking
in one way or another, but they would often entice you with a few killer features. Back then, those killer features were almost strictly just portability. That was the core reason
for buying these versions. But as the 3D revolution hit our screens with the Nintendo 64 and PlayStation, the idea of re-releases
became much more enticing to not only developers,
but consumers as well. Like, do I really want to be
seen with one of these in 1996? Who'd want to see a fetus play Nintendo? Do you really want to keep
your old systems around just to play "Chrono Trigger",
just to play "Excitebike", just to play old arcade
games when all of these games could definitely be played
on your new systems? Well, these consoles
were much more competent at emulating older systems
without a ton of hassle, so much so that sometimes older games were just thrown into
new games as bonuses. You could play the original "Excitebike" in "Excitebike 64", the original arcade "Donkey
Kong" in "Donkey Kong 64", "Galaxian" was the loading
screen in "Ridge Racer". Games that were once the
hottest (bleep) on the planet became waiting rooms. But when it came to full-blown remakes- Again, "Excitebike 64". It has a 3D remake of
the original "Excitebike" as an extra mode. Do you have a 3D remake of the original "Excitebike"
as an extra mode? (bleep) you, "Donkey Kong 64". I believe during this time
developers were more eager to create brand new experiences, especially with 3D being
the hip new thing to do. When it came to revisiting
old experiences, they preferred just cleaning them up, adding some cutscenes, and loading screens to "Chrono Trigger", and calling it a day. "Resident Evil 1" started
life out as a remake of the Famicom game "Sweet Home", but obviously it became its own thing. That idea, however,
taking this age old game and modernizing it with
a brand new direction and perspective is exactly
what the gaming industry was going to experience
a generation later with- Oh, hey. "Resident Evil" again. The GameCube, PlayStation 2,
and Xbox was the golden era of all things lazy. All types of re-releases happened. There were standard re-releases, old games playable on
modern platforms instead of brand new ones that might've
maybe pissed people off, remasters, old games spiced
up for modern platforms with a few changes here and there that maybe probably pissed people off, and then remakes, from the
ground up reconstructions of games that changed so much that it probably sort
of pissed people off. They covered all bases. A game I believe to truly
define what a remake could be was "Resident Evil" on the GameCube, a remake of "Resident
Evil" on the PlayStation. Everything was upgraded and tweaked to make this the definitive way to experience "Resident Evil 1", although it's fair to consider these two as different games based on the same overall story and structure. Basically, RE Remake is what
they wanted the original to be if technical limitations
weren't as much of a thing on the PlayStation. It covers the same beats but added tons of stuff and gave the overall game
the darker tone they wanted but couldn't do because acting is hard. - Stop it. Don't open that door. - Similarly, "Metal Gear Solid" was remade on the GameCube as "Metal
Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes", re-engineering the
title to be more in line with "Metal Gear Solid
2" than the original. And it is way more over the top. "Twin Snakes" has some good stuff, but such a tonal shift
from the original game that I think these two stand on their own, rather than "Twin Snakes"
straight up replacing it. But then we have "Conker
Live and Reloaded" on the original Xbox, one of the most love it or hate it remakes out there. They cult classic N64
title and made it gorgeous. It's insane to think this
was on the original Xbox and not the Xbox 360. And while various tweaks
were made to the gameplay to make this the overall
better game experience, a lot of things were changed that make this version
have way less charm. The animations are so stiff in comparison. In the original, Conker's
entire face is fully animated to portray anger, sadness, happiness, you know,
stuff us live people do. The remake seems to only
really give him 2D eyelids to convey his emotions. Plus in this M-rated game
that is entirely focused on being crass and inappropriate, they oddly censored
more stuff in comparison to the Nintendo 64 original. You're trying to tell me
my Xbox can't say (bleep)? Now, me personally, I find it funnier when (bleep)
and (bleep) are bleeped, but it's just bizarre that
while the N64 version already had some dialogue censored, the Xbox version has
even more of it censored when this is supposed to
be definitive experience. And the Xbox is for people who love to say the word (bleep). Plus the old multiplayer was replaced with a completely different
online multiplayer mode. This is a toughy because, while they tweaked various things to make the game playing
presentation better, even adding new scenes that poked fun at this being a remake, it's obvious this wasn't
just a quick cleanup job. The thing is a "Conker's
Bad Fur Day" was beloved for the character of it all. I don't know many people who say, "This game's humor is terrible, but God, I love the gameplay." When you take one of the
core gimmicks of the game being the fact that these
cartoons swear, ha, ha, how the story is actually
very character-based, and is one of the biggest
elements of the game, how all the characters were full of life and a unique personality, and you censor more of it and
make the animations worse, it's a tough decision to
decide between the two. Do you want a better game or do you want the
better Conker experience? See, that's one of my big
issues with a lot of remakes and remasters in general. See, they take the original game and they try to improve upon it. But then there's those few little features they don't improve on. Either forget to or they
changed things up too much or they just remove features entirely. So that begs the question, why wasn't there Wii remote support in "Twilight Princess HD"? The Wii U supports Wii remotes. You could have had both the Wii and GameCube control schemes in one game. Nintendo, why aren't you writing me back? But remakes weren't the only thing this generation experienced since the Dreamcast (bleep) died. Sega brought over loads of their games to the remaining big three platforms with some new content added. Plus, they remade many of
their classic titles in 3D via the "Sega Classics
Collection" alongside tons of compilation disks featuring
so many classic titles, making tons of old
school favorites playable on these things people were
actively playing at the time. And then there was "Resident
Evil 2 and 3" on the GameCube. What the hell was going on here? I don't know why it took
me so long to realize these are just PlayStation
1 games on GameCube discs. They didn't add anything,
didn't change anything. If you played these games on the PS1, you played these games on the GameCube. I never heard anybody talk about the GameCube versions of these games, but for some reason I always expected them to be somewhat remade along the lines of the GameCube remake, but if that were the case, I'd hear more people
talk about these games that they were actually remakes, so I have damn no clue
why I didn't expect these to be just straight up ports. This was somewhat
unprecedented at the time, to just take an old game
from the previous console and throw it on the new
one with no enhancements. Just another way to play these old games. If they release these two
games a part of a bundle, a "Resident Evil 2 and 3" collection, there wouldn't be anything new. While this business tactic was
a bit abnormal at the time, it would later become so much more popular with generations to come. With the seventh generation, there was a huge leap
forward with presentation. We got HD graphics, online
play was the standard across everything. This must've meant classic games were fully remade from scratch. What the (bleep) is this? Welcome to one of the nicest
infestations I've ever met. I'm not complaining, but an infestation's still an infestation. This is what I consider
to be the HD remake era, games that were consistently
called remakes back then- Oh my God, "Rayman 3" remade? Do you have no shame? This is just the original
game in widescreen. It's a little bit crisper,
but it still looks old. Models, the textures, they
don't look modern at all. Like I'll happily take
the game in widescreen but nothing else looks all too improved. See, we have tons of
classic games re-released during this era through digital shops, compilations or HD collections, and whenever it would have
HD at the end of the title, it basically meant the only thing we did was put this game in widescreen. Let's get out of here. Here's my problem with these. Yes, it was nice to have these games in a slightly more modern
format on a new console with improved visuals, kind of, but when you put these
games in a higher resolution and that's all you do, it kind of makes the visuals
look more dated this way. See, "Resident Evil 4" on the GameCube. This game and the models were
made for a lower resolution and thus it hides a lot of imperfections. They didn't put as much
detail in some areas because the resolution would mask it. "Resident Evil 4 HD" on the Xbox 360, sure, it's cleaner, but the
fact that it's now in HD, it's so much easier to see
where this game is aged and it oddly looks older now. This is on the same console
is "Resident Evil 5". With them both being an HD, it's easy to see how these
visuals have aged more so. I'm not saying "RE4"
is a bad looking game. Far from it. But you can appreciate
visuals more in something like the GameCube version. Here it looks like a
GameCube game running in HD. And it's harder to appreciate in this way. I like remakes when
they upgrade the visuals to the point where you
can't tell it's an old game. Nearly all quote, unquote
remakes during this era were not that. Like here, point out the old game. These remakes are more
so called remasters now, which is a much better term for them. And many described them as
they may be unimpressive at first, but they're how you
remember the game looking. And when you see the original
it's like night and day. Yeah, with some games, sure. But most of the time these remasters were literally just wide-screen versions. At least this made many games more readily available
on modern platforms, but these remasters felt very budget. Obviously, these developers just wanted to make these games
available on these consoles with slightly upgraded visuals. They didn't want to
remake the entire game, so just throw together some HD collections where the games constantly swapped between four by six and 16 by nine. This just looks bad. "Devil May Cry HD", featured
in the HD collection. Listen, I understand why it flip-flops between aspect ratios. It uses pre-rendered video
files alongside cut scenes that take place in-game. "Devil May Cry" was initially
made with four by three in mind, so these videos are
justifiably four by three. The in-game cutscenes and gameplay, they were able to modify the code to run these in widescreen. The video files are pretty
much stuck the way they are. I get it. Unless they wanted to go in
and remake all these videos, they had to do it this way. But my problem with this is, when playing this game
on the PlayStation 2, it's not all too noticeable
what was a video playing and what was the actual in-game stuff. That was the point in making half of these things video files. When playing the HD version, it's immediately
recognizable what's a video and what's not because
of the aspect ratio. And at that point I kind of wished they just kept the entire
game in four by three. It constantly changes. Just don't even bother putting it in widescreen at this point. But what about in HD remasters when they take four by three video files and just stretch it into widescreen. What do you think? This is funny? This is dumb. It looks bad. You're actively cutting off a pretty sizeable amount of the footage. It shocks me the "Sonic
CD" remaster did this when everything else about it is so respectable when it
comes to preserving the gaming, giving players as many
options as possible. Most HD remakes on the
Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 were done on the cheap. Both of these platforms had
limited backwards compatibility, so it just made sense to barf out ways to play these old games again. And that's all these things are to me. Ways to play these old games again. They may be in widescreen now, may look a little crisper. That's about it. At least we got some of
them in fat collections, making them fairly decent buys. But see, I wish I popped in the "Ratchet and Clank Collection" and had a cool menu with tons of extras and behind the scenes features. Scratch that. I want none of that. Oh my God. Thank you, Sony. The HD remasters during this
generation were fine times 10. Many of them looked pretty good and it was nice to be
able to play these games in HD technically. But so many of them
just made me feel empty. Like playing "Devil May Cry" on the PS2 just feels more right, while playing the HD version
just feels more awkward. It doesn't feel right on
this console for some reason. And the fact that these were considered remakes back then bugs me. And what else bugs me is I didn't realize that most of these games
use the term remaster on their boxes. I knew a contradiction
sounded good right about now. On the Wii, things a bit different. Since it didn't output in HD, re-releases took on a different style. Here's "Resident Evil" again. So this is a port of the remake of a game that started life as a remake. It was basically the exact
same as the GameCube version, just with more control options now. At least they labeled this as part of the "Resident Evil" archives, which does imply this is ass old. Two and three on the GameCube, I honestly wouldn't blame you if you were surprised they
weren't enhanced in any ways. There was the new play
controlled series by Nintendo which took GameCube games and
enhance them in some ways, most notably with motion controls. But, of course, there were de-makes like "Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop", a port of the Xbox 360 game My God. "Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop" is best use to finish talking
about the seventh generation and moving on to the current day where remakes, remasters and re-releases are all happening at the exact same time. We're getting pretty much every type of thing re-released now with one thing type being very prevalent. The this. Started in 2014 when Square-Enix said, "Only four million people
bought "Tomb Raider"? That's embarrassing." Less than a year later, after it's released on
Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, "Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition" came out on Xbox One and PlayStation 4, taking any last gen game and
sprucing it up just a bit. It wasn't enough to really
be this huge leap forward. Rather it was a slightly better looking, better running version
of the exact same game. It was the exact same game. This game would start a
trend on these consoles. The Xbox One and PlayStation 4 had absolutely no way of playing
older games at this time, so developers took advantage of that by re-releasing Xbox 360
and PlayStation 3 games as definitive additions and remasters. The term remastered became
a lot more widely used with video games during this generation, definitely after being
used with "The Last of Us". This was a great chance
to make some extra cash while also giving consumers the chance to play some games they might've missed. Games from the previous generation didn't necessarily age that bad, so it just made sense to
re-release them like this. But sometimes I felt like
they were deliberately trying to give us not a deal. "God of War 3 Remastered". All right, so guess which
one's the PS3 version. Guess which one's the PS4 version. They're both the PS4 version. Look at this. I don't think much of a difference. That's not a big problem
and "God of War 3" was already a great looking game. I don't know what you
could do to make it look that much better, but they sold this as strictly just "God
of War 3" for 40 bucks when a fat "God of War"
collection was released for PS3, including "God of War 3". Why not release this
entire package for PS4, remaster the other games even more? And if they were trying to
lure in more "God of War" fans on the PS4, why release three when the first two weren't available? But then we also get just ports. These aren't necessarily
anything to write home about. They're ways to play old
games on the new console, no new bells and whistles,
no true differences, just they're here. But we're also getting
full modern remakes, taking old games and
reconstructing them from scratch to either give them fully modern graphics or just take the game and make
a new modern game out of it. I mean, "Shadow of the Colossus" on PS4 is pretty much still
"Shadow of the Colossus" after "Shadow of the Colossus"
already got remastered on PS3 after originally releasing a "Shadow of the Colossus" on PS2. The "Crash Insane Trilogy"
and "Spyro Reignited Trilogy" are still the same old games at heart. But titles like the "Resident
Evil 2 and 3" remakes, "Final Fantasy 7 Remake",
these are new games. They may follow similar paths
as the games they're remaking but at the end of the day, the game play is completely different. The level designs are
completely different. They are fundamentally
taking them the core concept of those original classics and making new games based off of them for modern audiences as
well as long time fans. So what the hell are these things? Well, I've talked about
re-releases in the past, but that was more so
talking in defense of them and the definitive edition craze. What we're talking here
is the core differences between remakes, remasters
and re-releases in general. Remakes I consider it to
be old games reconstructed from the ground up or
with enough modern changes to make it almost feel like a new game. Remasters are more so polishing up a game, taking the core of it and not
doing too much to alter it, instead of tweaking a few things, adding some stuff, making
the graphics look better. It's definitely a better game now but still the same game at heart. And re-releases are just
"Resident Evil 2" GameCube. So, which games are classified as which? I'm glad you asked because
welcome to a safety hazard. We have a lot of remakes,
remasters and re-releases to go through here. Which ones are remakes,
which ones are remasters, which ones re-releases,
which ones are gonna fall? (clattering) We are really getting
ahead of ourselves here. The "Crash Bandicoot Insane Trilogy", this one's an easy remake. It's the first three games
fully remade from scratch, new music, new gameplay, new physics. It's going in the remake pile. I've been looking for
a use for that thing. "Secret of Mana" on PS4. This one is disgusting. They took this beautiful SNES game and gave it the cheapest
looking 3D graphics but I have to give it to
them, they sure did remake it. I think the best way to discern what is and isn't a remake is if they
literally remade the game. "Resident Evil 2, 3" and
the "Final Fantasy 7 Remake" Now I think a lot of people
would automatically go, "Oh yeah, for sure these are remakes," but let me open up an
entirely new category here. Reeemakes. Games that are fundamentally new games with the old game's name. They may share some similar characters, plot points, and locations, but the gameplay is completely different. Things have been heavily altered. Elements are added and/or cut. These are pretty much new
games disguised as remakes but they get the honor
of being called remakes. "Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop", we'll just open up the de-make pile here. This is "Dead Rising", but
it was heavily downgraded to fit on the Wii, so yes, de-make. "Super Mario 64 DS". Yeah, I didn't really talk
about handheld remakes throughout history and that's because most of
them are pretty much the same. They add some really cool stuff and even if they don't add anything, the fact it's now portable
is enough of a selling point. However, they all have at least one thing that keeps them from greatness. "Mario 64 DS" adds so
much to the original game on top of altering tons of it. It's still "Mario 64"
at the end of the day but they changed around a few things and it is now really lame
to control with the DS. Well, some things had to be downgraded for this to work on the DS. It's not a de-make
considering I think they added more than they took away, so I think this is more
so in remake territory. "Silent Hill HD Collection". This is a compilation of "Silent
Hill" two and three in HD. Good for it, but it's not good. This is a buggy amateur-feeling
remaster of these two games. But the studio who
remastered them had to work with the code Konami gave
them, which was unfinished. They didn't have the
finalized code from the game, so they had to rebuild
parts of it themselves. Does that make this a remake? I'll throw it in the "Silent
Hill HD Collection" pile to be safe. "Legend of Zelda Windwaker HD"
and "Twilight Princess HD". Remasters. These are both these same games at heart but with HD graphics and
quality of life improvements. And I won't say I
remember Nintendo posting a comparison video of
"Twilight Princess HD" showing how much better the
remaster looked compared to the original, and I thought the original version' was the HD version for a second. I don't really care for how
"Twilight Princess HD" looks but that doesn't make it
any less of a remaster. "Donkey Kong Country
Returns 3D", the 3DS version of "Donkey Kong Country Returns". It gets rid of motion control, offers new difficulty options, it includes new levels, it's portable and it
fixes my biggest problem with the original game. It's in 3D now. But the resolution and
frame rate take a hit. It doesn't look as good. I would've said it was a remaster, but it was obviously
downgraded to run on the 3DS. How about this? It's a de-remaster. It's enhanced in almost every way but was downgraded to run on the system. "The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening" for the Nintendo Switch. Remake. It's obviously very, very
faithful to the original, but with its new art style, it was obviously reconstructed
for the Nintendo Switch. "Resident Evil Remake". See, this is close enough to the original to be considered a
remake and not a remake. "Resident Evil Remake". It's the same game on a new console. "Resident Evil Remake Remaster". It's the same game, but it looks better. "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D", "Majora's Mask 3D", and "Starfox 64 3D". I consider these all remasters. They all play pretty damn
similar to the originals, but they look a bit better and also have some quality
of life improvements. "Halo Combat Evolved Anniversary". I consider this a remaster. You can even swap between
the original style and the new style on the fly. "Wii Sports Club" I think is a remaster. They had to remake it for Wii Motion Plus. They're the exact same games, though. "Silent Hill HD Collection". "Grand Theft Auto San
Andreas" on Xbox 360. This is lame. This is the mobile phone version on 360. It runs weird and a lot
of the user interface still looks like it was
made for a touchscreen. Now, if you want to
consider this as derivative of the mobile phone version,
then it's a re-release. If you want to consider this as derivative of the original release, it's a remaster. (clattering) "Mario and Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story" plus "Bowser Junior's Journey". I think this is a remake, not a remaster. You could already play
the DS game on your 3DS. Nobody was asking for this. I'm throwing this on the pointless pile. "Assassin's Creed 3
Remastered" on Nintendo Switch. It's not really that much better looking. They added motion controls. (bleep) it. Re-release. You know, the line's pretty
blurry between what's a remake, a remaster and a re-release sometimes. And, honestly speaking,
that's pretty cool. It means game developers are doing what they want with
revisiting old experiences, rather than just sticking
to what the true definition of a remaster is and nothing more. People shouldn't be so
worked up over whether or not something is defined as a remake or a remaster or a re-release because with games like the reeeemakes, it's kind of hard to tell
what's even considered a remake anymore. While I definitely prefer when games get a full remake treatment, like with "Link's Awakening", I've come to respect
remasters quite a bit more even if they aren't nearly as exciting. Well, I think I'm finally ready to start the three remake of my life
now that my cost has been cut. I just want to see what my
life warrants on the board. Son of a bitch! (upbeat music)
Anyone find it super hypocritical that he's criticising remakes when he himself starred in Spider-Man: Homecoming, which itself is a reboot, and then Scott The Woz: Homecoming, clearly a remake.
This one is quite timely for me, since I've just ordered Majora's Mask 3D and Final Fantasy VII Remake, as well as downloaded Resident Evil Remake on PS4.