HD remake vs Full Remake

You are no better with your post.

Does that include the PC version? Because that is incredibly stupid (For obvious modding reasons) like buying Doom 3:BFG when I already own Doom 3

I'm talking about the steam version specifically. I don't know what you mean, you're saying it's not worth it because you can mod the changes in? Because I sure as hell am not capable of doing that! :P

I'm definitely getting both redux versions, despite already having the originals.

Just download the mod and drag and drop them to the main directory.

Please stop making terrible threads.

I was not aware there would be a mod that does everything redux will do, or are you just being a condescending douchebag?

Right? What proof has he provided besides being a Sony fanboy?

All good. I have bought every playstation released and will this one. Just because I prefer the xbox doesnt mean I hate the others.

Halo Anniversary is the gold standard on how to make a remake.

hmm no. its not.

My friend, it indeed is the gold standard.

what is meant by gold standard?

That would be REmake.

HD "remake" isn't a real remake. We should call those what they really are :remaster

How isn't an engine upgrade not an HD remaster? Its the same game. That is not a full remake. Goldeneye on Wii is a true remake.

It was great having the option to see the game as it was in 2001 on the fly by pressing the select button plus you had all the terminals to find which tells a good story as well not found in the original and added on line options the original lacked as well. 343 did a nice job IMO.

Both have the same audience but one appeals to more than just nostalgic fans. A pure HD re-release of a game is simply a fan service meant to allow fans of the series to play their favorite games on modern systems in HD resolutions.

A remake is trying to broaden the audience in addition to appealing to the fans. The Halo Master Chief Collection is clearly trying to expand the fanbase for Halo as well as sell more Xbox Ones so that Halo 5 has a larger fanbase to sell too.

The Homeworld HD remakes are doing both. There is the HD re-release where it's Homeworld 1 and 2 in their original engines, re-compiled to work on Windows 7/8, and have been upgraded to support modern resolutions. The other version is a total asset rebuild of Homeworld. New graphics engine, new models, new textures, and even new audio from the original audio engineers. It's trying to appeal to PC gamers who missed out on the series instead of just being a nostalgia trip.

Full remake would just be changes that aren't just a graphical update. If its just a graphical update how can you consider it a "Full" remake and not an HD one?

For instance, in other media, Stars Wars original trilogy re-release in the late 90s was a remaster while King Kong (PJ new release) was consider a remake of an original. Didn't 343 call the collection a remaster? IGN calls it a remaster, gameinformer calls it a remaster. 343 just announced Zanzibar map (at comic-con) to be included and called it a remaster. How isn't it a remaster?

Why not both