What constitutes a remake/remaster isn’t well defined insofar a common consensus is concerned. I’d count the N64 remake, the All Star Collection, the 3DS remakes of OOT/MM, etc. If you mean “substantially changed the core gameplay/story” like FF7R or the RE ones, I guess not?
I'll take a stab at it.
Improved textures (either via updated scans of original hand-drawn artwork, new redrawn artwork, or upscaling when done properly), faster (and stable) framerate, better modern hardware compatibility, higher resolution, bugs fixed (when their absence doesn't detract from classic/common gameplay, e.g. item dupe bugs should be left alone, but crash bugs should be fixed), higher-quality sounds and music (perhaps 44KHz instead of 22KHz or whatever the original had), crisper text (but
not rewritten) ... all of that stuff makes for a remaster.
Changing the story, reducing female characters' breast sizes (lookin' at you, Square, w/your FF7 Remake Tifa bullshit), altering gameplay mechanics, re-recording voice dialog, changing graphics (not just upscaling/cleaning up, but actually changing them), changing the music, etc., or really adding/changing anything more than you could get away with in a "director's cut," is a remake.
These days they can't fucking resist going back and "changing it up" whenever they go back to do a "remaster" and wind up accidentally making a "remake." I'll never understand (as a straight white male) how so many people who claim to have penises and claim to be attracted to women feel so compelled to reduce the attractiveness of women in the games they remake.
