I just finished AC2 from the AC Eizo trilogy which is basically a remaster of the 3 AC2 games released for PS4\XONE.

However, when I look at the actual games connected to the collection I see that it's the original games that are linked. The remastered versions are different in that they contain the DLC as integral part of the story while you could finish the original game without. The DLC are about 4 hours of added content so entered gameplay time is not really the same for both versions.

Now, I know this has come up before. When I look at, for example, the uncharted collection (The nathan drake collection) it also contains the 3 original games. However, when you take the Bioshock collection separate games are created and part of this collection, including dlc. Same with Crash Bandicoot & Spyro.

oc it depends on the sort of collection, but in these case I would argue that the games are different than the original so they should have separate entry's.

What are your thoughts?

I think the three games weren't "remastered" or even pitched that way by Ubisoft, other than they had some graphical enhancements and then grouped on to one disc. They are definitely not remastered like the Spyro trilogy was. If anything, I would say all the separate DLC from each game should show as part of the collection to be included.

I see your point, but Spyro is more a remake (like Shadow of the Colossus, Bandicoot, RE2, CoD:MW). So they fall in a category of 'uber'-remasters imo. Bioshock is called a remaster, but hardly is. Just like the AC2 collection it packaged and sold on new platforms. Skyrim, Dark Souls, Burnout Paradise are also good examples of remasters that hardly add anything to the original games. The point is that they have separate entry's in Completionator. I even see the AC Rogue and upcoming AC3 remasters as separate entry's (hmm where is the 3rd remaster of AC Liberation? ;-))

So to me it feels like inconsistency the way they are handled. But i acknowledge it's also based on the way the games are sold to us. Adding the DLC to the collection would indeed help. But the point remains that playthrough times for AC2 for PS3 and PS4 cannot be compared because of this.

I wouldn't consider Spyro a remake. My understanding is they took the original format and slapped new graphics on it. Nothing else changed, whereas RE2 is a complete remake of the game. Spyro and CoD: MW I would consider remasters. I agree there are some inconsistencies and can probably be handled better. I think the fact that the games in the AC Ezio bundle weren't called remasters by Ubisoft is part of the cause.

I agree there has been some inconsistency with remakes / remasters / re-releases. This is partially because the data model we use has evolved over the years, but also because sometimes it can be difficult to categorize each release into some sort of standardized criteria.

The general rule that I try to follow these days is if the developer / publisher treats it as a different "SKU" or release, it should get a separate entry here. For example, Beyond Good and Evil HD is basically the original game running in a higher resolution and some trophies / achievements. But Ubisoft treats it as a separate release and slapped the "HD" suffix to it, so we have an entry for it. Other examples here would be things like Okami HD, Dark Souls: Remastered, and the BioShock Remastered titles that were mentioned earlier in this thread. To me, these are all automatically treated as separate entries.

The above rule also applies to certain "editions", but this can get a little fuzzy. The easiest example I can provide would be something like Borderlands: Game of the Year Edition, which is the original game and all of its DLC. This is on here and treated as a compilation. There are other enhanced re-releases that aren't necessarily compilations, but still warrant standalone entries. Where this can get a little confusing is that I don't feel like we should have standalone entries for the more traditional "Limited Edition" or "Collector's Edition" releases that come with extra stuff at retail. Those are better served as being treated as "editions" on the primary game entry. This gets even more confusing because sometimes things like "Limited Edition" and "Collector's Edition" should actually be separate entries. An example of this would be Age of Empires: Collector's Edition, which was a physical release that contained the first two Age of Empires gameg and their expansions.

So how do we define what's a remake / remaster / whatever? Some are clear-cut, but many are more subjective. I don't think anyone would disagree that the recently released Resident Evil 2 is a total remake, so that's an easy one. Then you have things like Tomb Raider from 2013 that simply used the original game's name as a reboot, rather than a remake. So that's another easy one. I know there's a bit of disagreement here, but I would consider the Spyro games in the Reignited Trilogy to be standalone releases because from what I can tell, they're not just "take the old code and pretty up the graphics". Sure, they are basically the same games, but it seems like they were from the ground up remakes, not just upscaled into HD resolutions. I would say the same for the Crash Bandicoot remasters, which is why all of those were granted separate entries here.

Where I still have trouble in determining if something warrants a separate entry would be for the recently released Onimusha: Warlords remaster. This release is simply the original game running in higher resolutions with achievements / trophies and some modern control changes. There might be other differences, but it feels awfully similar to what I played nearly 20 years ago. Complicating things further is that Capcom did not apply an "HD" or "Remastered" suffix and simply called it Onimusha: Warlords and reused the old box art. But we gave that one a separate entry, thereby somewhat violating my above rule of "if it has HD or whatever, give it a separate entry".

Remakes and such are only one piece of the puzzle. There's also the issue when seemingly the same game is actually two or more different games. This problem was most prevalent in the 80s and 90s. For example, Beavis and Butt-head for SNES, Genesis, and Game Gear are three completely different games made by different developers. This "same name, released at the same time, and maybe even the same boxart, but completely different game" trend applies to a huge majority of console / handheld releases in that era. There was a time when I would split these up accordingly, which is why Beavis and Butt-head has two entries (and arguably it should have more). I've eased up on this quite a bit though now that we can have custom box art for each release, but also because it's very confusing to search for items in the database and know which one you should add to get proper metadata, including VGPC data.

The only real advantage to having separate entries for the "Beavis" type games is that things such as completion times, ratings, difficulty scores, etc can potentially be more accurate. However, this can be handled in different ways, such as having the Game Details page break completion times / ratings / etc down by platform.

Okay, so back to the matter at hand here I don't know much about Assassin's Creed, but based on what I do know, I would probably lean towards adding the DLC as part of the compilation and not creating remastered versions of the individual games. The primary reason for this is the box art (and presumably Ubisoft) does not indicate that the games have been remastered or anything and they do not have any sort of "remastered" (or similar) suffix. Of course just adding the DLC can't be simple since according to this site the PS3 version has the DLC, but the 360 version does not

Thanks for the great reply! I see the logic you apply and can only agree.
Adding the DLC to the collection looks like the best option yes. And indeed you have an 'Eizo trilogy' and 'Eizo collection' but Ubisoft likes to create lots and lots of different collections so that doesn't surprise me :)

(Also, I think posts and information like this should be pinned or somewhere collected on the site. In the past I have seen more great posts about the inner workings and logic behind certain choices but they get lost in the haystack of posts. Perhaps a pinned article with faq-like structure and information like this would work? )

To clarify I agree that Spyro should have a separate entry as it has it's own SKU/title/etc.

I've been doing a little research on what to include, but man, Ubisoft seems to have made this needlessly complicated I'm not very familiar with the series though, so maybe that's where my confusion is coming from.

From what I can tell, Assassin's Creed: Ezio Trilogy contains:

• Assassin's Creed II
• Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
• Assassin's Creed: Revelations
• Assassin's Creed II: Bonfire of the Vanities
• Assassin's Creed II: Battle of Forli

As far as I can tell, the only DLC provided is for Assassin's Creed II.

Assassin's Creed: The Ezio Collection is basically the same as what I listed above, except it also includes single-player DLC for the other two games:

• Assassin's Creed: Revelations - The Lost Archive
• Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood - The Da Vinci Disappearance
• Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood - Copernicus Conspiracy (originally only on PS3, but supposedly is in this collection for both Xbox One and PS4)

For the AC experts out there, does all of this sound accurate? Am I missing anything?

I'm not an expert :) but that does seem right.

I finally got around to cleaning up those entries today, sorry for the delay!