What is the difference between a remake and a port?

Dashbot

Dashbot

BREEE
:mario: What is the difference between a remake and a port?

:luigi: Should ports have their articles?

:yoshi: Is Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 a remake or a port?

:bowser: Why does Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island has THE SAME LEVELS (including levels that doesn't belong the the original) as Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3?

:wario: Why does Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island has most of Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 merged with it (even pictures) while we have an article for the remake/port?

If Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 is a port, I think we should merge it with Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. Who agree?

To make it easier while answering you could put the icon instead of the whole question.
 
Remake literally means, made it once more, using new Code, new Art, new Music, or just these 3 in a slightly modded way.
Port at the other hand means, the game was released on a PC, and got re-released in identical form (without or by slightly touching any/the Code or Assets) to the SNES, for example.
Porting can be done before releasing the original game or after it, Remaking can be done after the release only.

For example:
Rayman Legends for PS3, PS Vita, and Xbox 360 are Ports of the Wii U Version (or the other way around), because it's the identically same game, with a few modifications at some points (Controls, for example).
Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D is a Remake of the Wii Version, because Nintendo and Retro had to rewrite the Code and redo the Art for the 3DS, and contains a couple of additions.

As for the Wiki Articles, let's ask a Wiki Moderator.

Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 is a Remake in every corner.

Remakes typically have the same Levels, deal with it.

As for the Wario question, again, ask a Wiki Moderator.
 
Ok, thanks. I will get work on the Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and the Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 and check everything. I will start by deleting the levels that doesn't belong to the original but the remake.
 
Megadardery said:
Why does Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island has most of Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 merged with it (even pictures) while we have an article for the remake/port?
Click to expand...
Perhaps it was left over after the article was split fairly recently (late March).

Megadardery said:
If Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 is a port, I think we should merge it with Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. Who agree?
Click to expand...
As per policy, they should actually be split, as they should be. So unless the policy is officially changed, then we can't do it.
 
I think this thread is partially redundant with this one. See Walkazo's post for further explanation about reissues.

By the way, I'm working on a major rewriting of the Remake article. See User:Banon/Work. I classed some of the reissues in categories, but it's still in progress.

I actually think SMA games are ports. There are not a lot of new stuff, it's basically the same game, except for some minor changes to fit the new system.
 
It's actually still a Remake, actually.
The difference between Remakes and Ports aren't counted at the amount of new stuff, they're measured as being re-used or not.
Everything used in a Remake have to be done from scratch, while everything used in a Port is literally taken from one Platform to another.
That's the real difference.
 
Yeah, that's the technical difference, but there's also the "different name and amount of new stuff" functional difference, which allows for things like VC releases to be called "ports" rather than "remakes". Of course, I'm only guessing that the coding for VC games is completely different - which is actually one of the pitfalls of the technical definition: if you don't know the technical details, you can't use the definition, and most folks don't care about that stuff either way - hence the "functional definition":

Walkazo said:
Port = Same game, new platform, may have some superficial changes as well as new controls to fit the new system, but you're still playing the same game. So the GBC version of WLII would be a port, as is the VC version. Can also include compilations, like SMAS (with SMASLE being a port of the original compilation of ports). Technically, some ports may be like remakes in that they're not the same game with tweaks, but a whole new block of coding, but unlike remakes, ports are a much closer mimic of the original, and usually have the same name, whereas remakes tend to differentiate themselves.
Click to expand...

That acknowledges the real difference, but also lets us classify reissues more intuitively.

However, while I stand by that part of my "port" definition, these days, I actually think of the SMA games as remakes - not because of the coding stuff, mind you, but because they're given different names ("remakes tend to differentiate themselves") and have enough changes to make for new experiences (i.e. the Roberto fight, the SMA4 e-card stuff, various small gameplay changes that all add up, etc.).
 
Actually, VC games are Emulated on the Wii/Wii U/3DS, these aren't Ports nor Remakes.
If you ask about the Controls, these are Mapped.
 
Maybe the SMA4 (SMB3) is a remake, but I don't think SMA2 (SMW) is one.

I'd say SMA4 is an enhanced port.
 
Peach_Facepalm_by_Finalsmasher.jpg
 
I did that, because it looked like Banon was answering one of the TS's questions, without even researching beforehand.
 
MKGirlism said:
Actually, VC games are Emulated on the Wii/Wii U/3DS, these aren't Ports nor Remakes.
If you ask about the Controls, these are Mapped.
Click to expand...
Thank you: you just proved my point.

Unhelpfully specific terms with definitions differing from their layperson usage, and technobabble that random readers aren't gonna know or care about. You say "emulated" and everyone's gonna think of things that let you play Nintendo games on your computer, rather than first parties making their own games available on later gen consoles: to most folks, that situation would be a port.

Folks already try and call everything a remake, the last thing we want to do if we want to make the wiki editor-friendly is tell them everything's a lie and the only way you can tell remakes, ports and emulations apart is software. Software is complicated. Software is invisible. Software is not a good criterion when it comes to organization.


Banon said:
Maybe the SMA4 (SMB3) is a remake, but I don't think SMA2 (SMW) is one.

I'd say SMA4 is an enhanced port.
Click to expand...
It'd be best to call the SMA series the same thing all through (consistency, simplicity), and besides, if you read through the changes (gameplay changes being the one we care most about here), there are a number of 'em for all four games.
 
I've been thinking: is it really important to distinguish ports, remakes, enhanced ports, re-releases, and enhanced re-releases? Couldn't we just say "reissue" or something? As much as I agree with your definitions, I think it's subjective.
 
Megadardery said:
YoshiKong said:
As per policy, they should actually be split, as they should be. So unless the policy is officially changed, then we can't do it.
Click to expand...
The policy talks about remakes, not ports.
Click to expand...
It depends on the subject matter, really. If the port was exactly the same (such as Virtual Console downloads), then it wouldn't be split. But if the content was different/released under a different name, then it should be made a separate article. But my statement was referring mainly to this point of yours:

If Yoshi's Island: Super Mario Advance 3 is a port, I think we should merge it with Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. Who agree?
Click to expand...
I was stating that the decision to split it or not would have to be determined by our pre-existing policy. And yes, I didn't really acknowledge the mention of a port.
 
YoshiKong said:
It depends on the subject matter, really. If the port was exactly the same (such as Virtual Console downloads), then it wouldn't be split. But if the content was different/released under a different name, then it should be made a separate article. But my statement was referring mainly to this point of yours:
Click to expand...
Yeah that what I meant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back