Remakes/remasters and their associated collections have exploded last decade, and it has formed unfortunate associations in my mind whenever I hear about a new one.
The default expectation is that they will be outsourced. The default expectation is that quality doesn't matter as much, because the reputation of the main series and the main developer isn't on the line. Graphics being better is a small selling point when it is true ("better resolution"), but a bigger decrement when it is false ("can't emulate fog or lighting effects correctly"). 2D games usually look worse if the art is redone (Secret of Mana, Actraiser, Langrisser.. YMMV, I'm nostalgic for the old look in these cases). 3D models and animation have about an equal chance of looking worse if they are significantlly altered. Games often have other miscellaneous changes that are mildly annoying. Mobile UI and mobile fonts. Changing bosses or core mechanics in Majora's Mask. Bad controller sensitivity or controller mappings. Tweaking stats for weapons and items when there is no discernible need.
Old games are normally very playable without any improvements, so it is sad to see them suffer cuts and bruises by being brought forward to the present. In some cases, it's more like doing misguided plastic surgery on someone who was perfectly fine to begin with.
I know there are economic and technical reasons why they can't just "re-release" old games at a low cost. It's a barrier to faithful porting and a barrier to just re-releasing everything. But we now know what it takes to get over that barrier. Namely: a shaky relationship between how remakes/remasters are presented with lots of pride and excitement vs what they can actually bring to the table as commercial product.
The lesson for me is to be cautiously suspicious and averse by default.
Addendum: A very nice but very small part of the remake/remaster/repackage swarm are actually new games in disguise, like FF7R, RE2:Remake, or Metroid Zero Mission. It was a historical mistake not to put these "super remakes" in a separate category from the others.
The default expectation is that they will be outsourced. The default expectation is that quality doesn't matter as much, because the reputation of the main series and the main developer isn't on the line. Graphics being better is a small selling point when it is true ("better resolution"), but a bigger decrement when it is false ("can't emulate fog or lighting effects correctly"). 2D games usually look worse if the art is redone (Secret of Mana, Actraiser, Langrisser.. YMMV, I'm nostalgic for the old look in these cases). 3D models and animation have about an equal chance of looking worse if they are significantlly altered. Games often have other miscellaneous changes that are mildly annoying. Mobile UI and mobile fonts. Changing bosses or core mechanics in Majora's Mask. Bad controller sensitivity or controller mappings. Tweaking stats for weapons and items when there is no discernible need.
Old games are normally very playable without any improvements, so it is sad to see them suffer cuts and bruises by being brought forward to the present. In some cases, it's more like doing misguided plastic surgery on someone who was perfectly fine to begin with.
I know there are economic and technical reasons why they can't just "re-release" old games at a low cost. It's a barrier to faithful porting and a barrier to just re-releasing everything. But we now know what it takes to get over that barrier. Namely: a shaky relationship between how remakes/remasters are presented with lots of pride and excitement vs what they can actually bring to the table as commercial product.
The lesson for me is to be cautiously suspicious and averse by default.
Addendum: A very nice but very small part of the remake/remaster/repackage swarm are actually new games in disguise, like FF7R, RE2:Remake, or Metroid Zero Mission. It was a historical mistake not to put these "super remakes" in a separate category from the others.