The title says it all. People really got Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD confused as a remake. It was just an international version reformatted for the PS3 and some tweaking done.

Well, how many games have been re released for X-Box 360 and PS3 as remasters? Several. The only actual remake was DMC that was released in 2013 for the Devil May Cry series and Devil May Cry 1-3 was given an HD remaster before that and was re released for the both the 360 and the PS3.

So why can't some people tell the difference?

So my question is; how does an HD release qualify as a remake?

Its not like the gaming software company rebuilt the game from scratch on a new engine.

So if Bethesda slaps Morrowind on a 360 disc with HD graphics, but doesn't change anything and Morrowind doesn't have the same graphics as Fallout 3 or Skyrim, same engine or whatever; Can we call that a remake?

If Morrowind still had the same old graphics it did, just with a little high def add in. Would that still qualify as a remake in anyone's opinion?

I dont think many people mistake it, or at least anyone that is intelligent enough to tell the difference, which is honestly pretty elementary.

I think you think its a bigger issue than it really is.

The new DMC is a reboot, not a remake. A remake would be making the same game again but with a totally different engine/assets, while a remaster uses mostly the same assets and improves the resolution.

There isn't really that much of a difference between the two though, besides how much effort is required. Remasters are more common these days because 3D games are more easily recycled, since they can easily just tweak the animations and textures and improve the resolution. For older 2D games they have to remake everything in a higher resolution or port it to a 3D engine.

If you're talking about the DMC where Dante has short, black hair, that's not a remake, that's a reboot of the series.

Remaster is keeping the same game but improving assets, mostly textures and FPS improvements, sometimes but rarely mesh improvements, and very very rarely a brand new soundtrack, as in the case of FF X HD.

A remake would be if they took all the concept art and game mechanics and most of what's considered to be the core of the game, and completely remake it in a modern engine, with brand new models, textures, soundtrack and everything else. For example, imagine they re-release Devil May Cry 1 on ps3, on an engine that DmC: Devil May Cry was made on. That would be a remake of DMC1.

In case of Morrowind, just re-releasing Morrowind on the same engine with optional better textures or meshes or whatever else would all be a remaster as long as it's made on the same engine. Releasing it in enhanced engine that Skyrim was built on would be a remake, because they wouldn't be enhancing any assets from Morrowind, they would have to recreate everything and build it anew.

And is it just me, or are you a real topic spammer, I swear that every 3rd new topic I run into is yours, and it's almost always something trivial like this that you could have just googled. So instead of asking why don't people know something, or confuse something, you should be asking "why do people not google??".

Different perspectives on the definitions as well as the tendency of many to ignore semantic details in general.

Do they? I guess I don't hang out on the forums where those people post, never seen this come up.

(Quick assumption would be "'Cause they're dumb?" Followed in second place by "unclear advertising.")

I dunno, I think the difference is getting perilously close to the opaque meanings you get with jargon, which I wouldn't expect the average person to be very familiar with. Even as a fairly seasoned gamer I'd have to stop and think about exactly what the implications of those definitions are. I'm inclined to wonder if it really matters anyway.