Port or Conversion? An Ontological Framework for Classifying Game Versions

"Port or Conversion?" argues that the term "game port" is conceptually vague and historically inconsistent, yet indispensable for game analysis and preservation. Its central thesis is that existing definitions of "port" based on names, platforms, marketing, legality, or literal code transfer each fail to yield a stable academic category. In response, the paper proposes a formal Carnapian explication built on a three-layer ontology of physical, structural, and presentation layers, paired with a graded scale of sameness, similarity, resemblance, and difference for classifying game versions by fidelity.

The framework is illustrated through a series of revealing cases, including multiple versions of Pac-Man (the Atari 2600 release and a reverse-engineered version by DINTAR816), Thunder Blade's Atari ST and Amiga releases, Marvel vs. Capcom on PlayStation 1, and earlier examples such as The Hobbit, Bionic Commando, Dragon's Lair, and Snake. These cases show that the same title can differ dramatically across platforms, and that fidelity expectations concentrate on mechanics far more than on audiovisual presentation. The paper also argues that code reuse versus rewriting, a distinction proposed by Švelch, is only a necessary condition for defining a port rather than a complete definition.

Within this model, "port" is shown to be ambiguous, mapping to at least four distinct cases, while related terms such as hardware port, software port, virtualized port, conversion, remaster, mod, reskin, clone, emulation, and adaptation receive explications derived from overlaps across the layers. The authors characterize "remake" as largely a marketing label for what the framework classifies as a conversion. Importantly, the model is presented as a flexible, modifiable analytical toolset rather than a fixed typology, and it measures fidelity without judging whether any version is artistically or commercially "good."