How? You're removing something who is from the OG. The thing they're remastering. So how can it be a remaster? Looks like Capcom playing a word game with remaster and remake. This is a remaster so it's okay we remove stuff.

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

When movies are remastered a lot of times undesirable parts of it (vhs tracking lines, static, film scratches and the like) are removed. Same as when songs are remastered and they take out mistakes on the original recording. Hell, look at the amout of stuff that was changed with the "special edition" remasters of the Star Wars OT. In each case things are removed or changed, but it is still a remaster.

[–] hal_5700X@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You're talking about mistakes. But the Erotica bonus from photos is not a mistake.

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You asked how stuff can be removed from a remaster and still be called a remaster. I explained how that can be so.

The Special Edition in particular is relevant because Lucas changed things based on decisions he made later. Removing the Erotica bonus is equivalent to making Jabba a CG slug in his scene in A New Hope rather than a human gangster, as he was originally envisioned (yes the scene was cut from the theatrical release but the footage of human Jabba still exists). It's a change in artistic vision that the creators want reflected in their new definitive version.

With any luck Capcom won't pull a Lucas and make it nearly impossible to get the original version if someone wants to play it warts and all.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 3 points 3 months ago

Hal's argument sounds more like pedentry about what a remaster is vs what a remake is, and I would have to agree that this game sounds like a complete remake, and not simply a remastering of the original with what has been detailed about it.