Idk I still think it's way more common for remasters to be good. There's been a handful of bad ones, but they're the outliers. What's way more common seems to be bad PC ports in general, which affects both remasters and new games.

Just looking around for some examples: the Phonekx Wright original trilogy was great for me on PC, and the PC remasters are pretty well-received overall. The Sonic remasters from Christian Whitehead were so good that Sega let him make an original game. The BioShock games aren't really good to replay, but I didn't really notice anything different on the PC remasters compared to how I originally played them on the PS3.

Ones that I haven't played yet but have reviewed well: the Legacy of Kain series, the Last of Us 1&2 (you can argue that the remasters were not needed, and specifically the PC ports of those games had rough launches, but the console versions reviewed well and reportedly the PC versions have been mostly fixed). The Final Fantasy Pixel Remasters are widely considered to be the definitive way to play those games.

The examples I can think of for bad "remasters" weren't really remasters. The Grand Theft Auto series might be the most notorious for this, because they removed the original PC ports and released "remastered" prior Android ports instead of remastering the original PC or console versions. Silent Hill is another case- Konami lost the original source code so it was, by definition, a remake that they just chose to market as a remaster instead.

GTA:SA could be run at 144 fps. Just be aware that the whole engine is fps based, so cars will turn at a varying speed depending on your current fps, your physics will go wild and you'll see cars clipping into roads and shit, and it will be full of bugs.

Sometimes a remaster can basically break the whole thing.

The meme is specifically comparing these to PC Ports, so I'm limiting my scope to games that have PC versions. So no Nintendo games either for example.

And if there are lore changes then I would call that a "re-make" or "re-imagining". Part of the problem is that marketing teams have just chosen to go rogue in terms of what to call what. "Re-master" itself is a term that came from the mastering process of the music industry, to differentiate from "remix" or "re-recording", so I suppose you could argue that we need a better term overall for videogames. So this means I generally ignore whatever words they decided to slap onto the title screen and focus instead on what the changes actually are.

You can say the exact same thing about PC ports though. The mere act of changing from a console experience to a PC experience means that you are changing the medium and changing that experience. Most PC ports have always had options to support different resolutions, frame rates, color modes, aspect ratios, and more. Not because of some grand artistic vision from the creator, but because the hardware was not standardized the way TV's are and the developers realized that those options were insignificant details that were best left to the player to decide. Even a lot of console games had options like Widescreen or high-resolution modes in the 90's and early 2000's as widescreen HD TV's transitioned from rare enthusiast items to ubiquitous.

One of my favorite PS1 games growing up was Moto Racer, a pretty generic and unremarkable arcade motorcycle racing game. It originally released on PC, and the PS1 version released a month later. Which, for the 90's, was basically a simultaneous release. a couple years ago I bought the original PC version on steam because it was super cheap- it sucks and it's completely unplayable. The controls are just too twitchy. I went and emulated the original PS1 version and... It's fine, just like I remembered it. The game also had a re-make for its 15th anniversary, but I haven't played that version.

For games that originally released on PC as ports, I think that the publishers should leave those available. I really hate that Rockstar took down the original PC versions of GTA for example, and replaced them with what they called a "remaster" but was actually a port of the Android versions of the games, which I would say crosses over to "re-make" territory.

In order to get the full, original experience of when PC games first came out I would have to sit at a tiny desk shoved in the corener of my mom's living room and stare at a shitty CRT monitor that had washed out colors and warping around the edges. The room would be filled with cigarette smoke and there would be other children outside playing with lawn darts.

Even when I emulate games, I usually try to mess around with resolutions, original textures versus HD texture packs, locking at different frame rates, different filters or shaders, etc. I always thought Armored Core was a clunky mess of a game as a kid but as an adult I was able to emulate it and

I appreciate trying to preserve parts of history and culture, but that endeavor will always be limited. We cannot perfectly store an infinite amount of information indefinitely. Society and culture change over time, so we need to be careful when considering the context that art was made in versus the context of when we are experiencing it. I'm not going to learn Olde English and travel to England to handle the Norwell Manuscript to read Beowulf in its original form- it's not worth it.