Topic: What’s the difference between an enchanted port and a sequel?

I’ve been thinking recently with Mario Tennis Aces just being released and Super Smash Bros. Ultimate coming in five months, what makes an enchanted port and a sequel so different. I don’t think using the same assets makes a game a port otherwise Mario Tennis Ultra Smash is a MP10 port. Is it gameplay? I don’t think so otherwise NSMB was just a series of ports to three different consoles. I’d say it’s based on similarity, how much is added, how much is removed. But, I’d like to hear other’s thoughts.

The enchanted port is the same game infused with magic and a sequel is a continuation of the series.

@Yosheel : Beat me to the (magic mushroom infused) punch.

Ugh, I wanted to make this joke.

You’re all wrong. An enchanted port is the game turned into wine via a dlc code.

An enchanted port is like that one in Pirates of the Caribbean. All of the people are secretly under an undead curse.

insert enchanted jokes I can't think of here

But yeah, there's actually a quite a significant difference between the two. Just because a new game reuses assets, has returning mechanics etc., doesn't mean it's an enhanced port. Despite what the internet says, Splatoon 2, Mario Tennis Aces and Smash Ultimate arent enhanced ports at all. They just build off the foundation that the previous game built.

I don't understand this new trend of labeling some of Nintendos new sequels ports/enhanced ports/whatever. Because by that logic, would almost all of the Call of Duty games be a port of Modern Warfare? Or all the Assassin's Creed sequels be a port of the original? Or Brawl be a port of Melee?

And enhanced port is the same game just with some updates and new features. A sequel is a new game. Mario Galaxy 2 was a sequel to Mario Galaxy. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is an enhanced port of Mario Kart 8.

On another note, a 3rd category is a remake which is the same game, remade on a new engine using new assets.

Jokes aside, all of this is pretty arbitrary. When does a port become a remaster, when does a remaster become a sequel. At the end of the day it's nothing but fodder for meaningless fanboy arguments. One person will argue that game X fits into this box because it wins them a point when praising/criticising the library of console A or B. It's a bit stupid.

If you ask me a game is on a scale of 1 to 10. With 1 being literally an identical experience to a game I already have and 10 being something I haven't played. Then there's a middle area where it's not new but there's enough new there or the hardware it is now on is different enough that it's worth getting again.

So for me Bayonetta 2 was worth getting on Switch despite the fact that I own it on Wii U. Because the fact that it's now portable added enough to the experience that I was happy to get it again. Smash Bros on Wii U I was happy to get because it was HD despite the fact that I already owned the game on 3DS. Smash Bros on Switch I'll get again because it's now portable AND in HD. But Doom? I have it on PC, that's enough for me. I don't need it again on Switch. Same deal with Resident Evil Revelations when it was cheap on Wii U.

@skywake
Actually I think the words "port", "enhanced port", "remaster" and "sequel" are very well defined and don't leave much room to argue.
A port is a game that was made for another platform, but was made available to additional gaming devices after its original release. (Bayonetta 2 and 1 e.g.)
An enhanced port is a port with additional features (Mario Kart 8 Deluxe had the battle arenes).
One might discuss whether some enhancements are enough to make a port enhanced, but after all probably every port with even only the slightest additions is.
A remaster is an old game being redone with better graphics, often sound, sometimes gameplay changes. In contrast to a port it usually has to be completely built in another engine.
And a sequel obviously is a new game using the same gameplay mechanics and sometimes also characters or world as a previous entry, but changes it up (storywise, regarding setting, regarding characters, regarding gameplay elements).

It's true though that ports are probably more successful on Switch, because even without changing things up they automatically have the added feature of portability to warrant buying it a second time for some. Though that doesn't automatically make their games "enhanced", going by definition.

I think currently the line between "enhanced port" and "remaster" becomes slightly thinner regarding games like Skyrim that were built in HD-era and remastered in slightly-better-HD-era and probably didn't have to rebuild the game from ground up.

And I got to admit that the difference between "remaster" and "remake" doesn't come to mind right now, though I think I read it some time ago.

I always understood it to be -
A port is code for one architecture treated / translated to work on another architecture.
A conversion is an attempt to replicate an existing game from the ground up.
A remake is a replica of a game created from the ground up using technology to re-imagine elements.
A remaster uses a framework of a game and uses better code techniques / assets. It is possible for a remaster to be ported across to another platform and thus be referred to as both. (Possibly what confuses most people?)
A sequel has nothing to do with the code / assets and is purely a continuation of a franchise no matter how similar or different. As such, a sequel can be remade, ported or converted.
A spin off is like a sequel, but the publisher wishes to have more than one line in the franchise (carrying on the original game at some point.)
A revision is an already released game presented with extra features.
An enhanced port is something that makes no sense to me lol.

On this regard, I think it may best to follow whatever the developers call their own game. Yes, we can joke about how Destiny 2 is actually Destiny 1.5, or that Smash Ultimate is "just a port". That doesn't change how a game was defined by the people who made it. If the developers say that a certain game is a sequel, then it is a sequel. As long as it doesn't defy common logic, there shouldn't be a problem.

@Tiefseemiez
By all means you can make definitions but I don't think it necessarily adds anything. It just fuels endless arguments on gaming forums about whether or not one game counts or not. The average end user doesn't care at the end of the day. The game is at one extreme either brand new or at the other extreme it's literally the same thing again. How enhanced, remade or remastered the game is misses the point.