my name is supyreor catte: Doesn't need to be something meaningless, you could call it Monster Bash Remastered. The ability to scale low resolution art up to HD resolutions does not make the game HD.
By that definition everything I play in DOSbox and ScummVM is HD. In fact, by your definition anything displayed on a modern monitor is automatically HD. If I switch my desktop to 640x480 and let the monitor scale it up then it's still HD because it's the screen resolution that matters, not the contents displayed. Right?

To call a 2D game HD the artwork needs to be... high definition. Again, I have no issue with the choices they've made in this remaster, it's just the ridiculous name I take issue with.

I'm not complaining it's not HD (I think it's a very tastefully done remaster), I simply take issue with the claim that it's HD.

trusteft: I think you could use that brain power for something which is actually good and productive for the world. Like playing games.

trusteft: I get your point, but I think you are upset a bit too much over this. I mean, feel free to do so, it's your brain, but I think you could use that brain power for something which is actually good and productive for the world. Like playing games. I know I do.

JMB9: HD 1280x720,

my name is supyreor catte: I'm not upset, and these posts didn't exactly take a lot of time or effort on my part.
my name is supyreor catte: Whoops, looks like you just unproved your point: HD does have a specific meaning.
To call a game HD, the 2D art should have a minimum native resolution of 1280x720 - that is to say it isn't being scaled up to 1280x720. If it exceeds that and is being scaled down that's fine, you can still call it HD.

Scaling up a 320x200 game 4x does not make the game HD any more than doing the same in DOSbox does.

tomexplodes: Pedantic.

tomexplodes: Pedantic.

Also, how do you know the art is scaled up? It's entirely redrawn, it could be redrawn in an HD resolution. Your argument makes no sense.

skirtish: In this sense this entire argument is pedantic and, I say this as a staunch pedant, pointless.

my name is supyreor catte: Because I have eyes? You can clearly see that every pixel of the artwork is made up of multiple display pixels. It's extremely obvious and being redrawn has nothing to do with it, because it's been redrawn at the same resolution as the original game.

tomexplodes: All the blah blah blah aside, HD literally just means "high definition." You can post or retroactively apply it to anything you want, because when the term was first coined, it still really didn't mean anything. It's an easy thing to apply to anything that's in a HIGHER DEFINITION than what isn't. If it looks sharp on high resolution and the graphics are redrawn to look much better with more colors, that's "HD" enough for... anyone but you, I think.
For crying out loud, 480p was considered HD at one point.

my name is supyreor catte: The game is literally the same resolution it was before. I'll say it again: if 320x200 being scaled up x4+ is HD, then anything and everything is HD. Any game in DOSbox with an integer scaler looks sharp on a high resolution screen, so that's HD too?
No, the meaning of HD was standardised 15+ years ago, 720p is the minimum definition of HD.
Adding more colours is not the same thing as adding more definition.

my name is supyreor catte: There is no more definition, the image is made up of the same number of pixels as the original game.

You seem to think I'm saying the new one looks the same. The new one does look better, it has more colours and better drawn backgrounds, it's just not any higher definition than the original. Words mean things and definition does not refer to number of colours or quality of drawing. Are you being willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant?
At this point I'd be relieved if you told me you were trolling me.

my name is supyreor catte: Scaling up a 320x200 game 4x does not make the game HD any more than doing the same in DOSbox does.

tomexplodes: Eh, kinda. I'm disabled and constantly bored, so I argue a lot.

KingSyphilis: Worse, the dev refuses to acknowledge 1:1.2 pixel aspect ratio correction (resulting in 4:3 image) in any of these "HD" remakes. Everything is fat/wide at 16:10 output. Dev reckons it is so that pixels are "square & crispy", which is bullshit on a 1080p monitor (most common resolution) as 320×200 does not integer scale anyway ("crispy" nearest-neighbour artifacts).