I’m definitely in the minority, but remasters in general aren’t my cup of tea. I’d generally rather play the thing as it was. If a game was noteworthy for some reason I’d like to see it in roughly its original historical context, especially if it’s noteworthy for what it did with the hardware at the time. Remaking it can really take away from that in my opinion.
I don’t always mind it, especially when it makes a game that’s hard to run on modern computers readily available and has options that are faithful to the original… and sometimes it’s just nice to have shiny new graphics (like with the Spyro remakes). Other games it just seems silly for… like Bioshock and Mass Effect aren’t that old and the remasters don’t seem that different, so why bother? I guess they come as a bundle, so that’s a win? And I guess these releases are also good for consoles, but they seem silly on PC.
I won’t yuck anybody’s yums, though. If you like remasters that’s great… I just don’t really see the point most of the time, but maybe it’s because I like seeing old graphics and seeing where we came from and stuff.
For the most part I agree with you but generally want controls remapped to match current conventions. A lot of PS2 games are hard to play because they were making button layouts up as they went and it interferes with my muscle memory!
I never played Spyro growing up, so I don't have the nostalgia boner for it, but my partner did. Watching them play it was infuriating. The difficulty in the first three games is based entirely on the controls being dogshit.