You just answered your own question.

All gamers care about today is graphics. To them playing the same game with different graphics is like playing a new one since a) they concentrate on grpahics b) all the games they are the same shit all over again so they stopped noticing the differences.

As for me I would maaybe be slightly interested in replaying some ancient games remade with current (or next gen) technology but it's hard to say.

OoT is not a remake by the way, it's a port.

The only game remakes that really disappointed me, and I don't even know if they count, were the animal crossing sequels. They were basically the exact same game as the original with very few new features that would make paying for them and essentially starting over worth it.

Movies are a passive form of entertainment, so remakes don't so much for them. With video game remakes we have the chance of reliving old games with new mechanics and content.

That said, I think the remake fad needs to stop. Let's focus on new material.

>>6861
I feel like the DS Animal Crossing was best. You could carry it around with you, play with other people, and also draw patterns on the touch screen. Sometimes remakes add good new features. I wouldn't pay for a port but if a game has lots of new features and stuff, I'd pick it up.

>>6863
>You could carry it around with you, play with other people,

I don't go anywhere and don't know anyone. I did play the Wii version with a guy from another forum once, but all that happened was he complimented me on my town's grass and planted some flowers.

I think it's because old games are harder to find than old movies. And they run on old hardware that is even harder to find. So you have to emulate, and sometimes it's hard to find the game you're looking for.

While with movies, every generation of media, they re-release the old movies on the new media:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane
>The film was released on Blu-ray disc September 13, 2011, for a special 70th anniversary edition.

That is a good question

I think it is because video games are evolving at an insane rate. Many age horribly because of that. Something you thought was amazing back in the day is damn near laughable these days.

Nostalgia holds a big part in this too. The updates keep said old game form feeling so old and outdated but give the same feeling as when it was first played.

All that said, I think the graphics push is detrimental to video games. Updating really good early 3D games is fine and all, but the need to make games look as amazing as possible has made games really mediocre as the huge cost to make said game makes companies take the safe route that will please the most.

>>6870

>Something you thought was amazing back in the day is damn near laughable these days.

Really? If you exclude games I played as a kid (like when I was <12 or so) this never really happens to me. Rather, when I try to play them I'm impressed how something done with technology from 15, 20 years ago is so much better than most games nowadays.

I can't really stand any remakes. The exceptions are strategy games because you can make improvements in the mechanics.

But simple remakes that are just rehashes with newer graphics and better sound chips are unnecessary. Though I can tolerate some of the RPG remakes over the years, since they tend to add new levels/worlds and such.

Publishers now just love to do it because it's easier than creating IP from scratch.