I played recently RE: Survivor and found it overall more enjoyable than RE4. But I would not say that I want a remake of it. Remakes are just idiot thing because they tend to change or remove the specific few things that render the original an interesting and charming game. A remake of RE4 is even more idiot.
REmake: 1 and REmake: 2 are substantially better than the originals. As I said, just a bunch of contrarians looking for attention from me.
Just follow for a moment this thought-experiment: imagine that Capcom is going to make a RE4-remake, with very high quality production, better than the original from graphics and accessibility point of view, but... in the same style of RE1 and RE1 remake: i.e. scaling down the shooter aspects, introducing cinematic camera to increase the tension and the scariness, reducing ammo and monster counts, basically making the RE4-remake a slow-paced survival horror instead of a shooter with an horror theme that was the original. Would you consider the remake objectively superior to the original RE4?
If you aren't just a dumb consumer that eat whatever is placed in his plate, but you really liked the original RE4 for what it was, why should you care about this remake? Where is the "objectivity better" in this case? Well, this is the same feeling that many people, who liked the original RE2 for what it was, have towards its remake.
. The REmake games are objectively better than the originals. You can be a graphics whore all you want with the "muh pre rendered background," but I'm not a graphics whore. REmakes are just superior in every way.
