I haven't actually noticed this happening before now. My immediate reaction is if it is changes driven by the original creators I'd feel quite positive about it. Love to see personal growth. When driven by the studio though, I'm a bit more skeptical.
Either way, this is why modding should be protected. Let folks play historical/modern/hyper-weird versions of the game they love.
Look a remaster should or could have obvious upgrades, sometimes it's visuals, videos, style, controls etc. that to me is good.
But that quote specifically tells me "the game has been changed for current day sensibilities" and I hate that. I feel it takes away from what the original had in mind, for good or bad.
I understand that many media have been racist/misogynist/ageist and accept that it was a product of its time. But I don't think it does it any good to essentially pretend that it didn't happen and I feel we're just pretending it isn't what it truly is when it's changed.
I do think remakes are different however. I feel they are taking the idea of the original but redesigning it in a way that the new designers for see.
BUT the fact is, that quote is only ever seen on media that hides the past, not remakes the future.
It does tell you that it's been changed, though. You can typically still go and play the original game. And it enables the people affected by -isms to enjoy it when sometimes said -isms would pull them out of it for them otherwise.
And it's not like the original intent was for people to be distracted by what would have, to the developers, have likely seemed a small or unquestioned detail. We can never truly approach a game the way its original audience did anyway because culture changes so much, and a large part the experience you have with art is what you bring to it. Thus why graphical updates can make the game look like you remember it, even though it now looks much prettier. I think these sorts of updates can be similar to that.
Granted, it's harder to access the original game because of hardware. But even so, a lot of original intent is always lost in the process of making a remaster. I'd argue "for modern audience" updates tend to be less of a departure than changes in visual design (the different lighting in the various Myst remasters that changes the mood, the extra foliage in Shadow of the Colossus remasters) or mechanics updates (the ability to control Resident Evil like a regular game instead of via tank controls).
Edit: I think my ideal scenario would be if remasters include "modern audience" updates of all kinds, to make the game as enjoyable for new players as possible, but also that the originals be made more easily available such as by legalizing or sanctioning emulation for old games.
Was it System Shock? Then yeah, it probably could use some love.
Was it Turok? Then hey, HD Dinos can be cool.
Was it Okami? Then why not, giving it some polish and getting it playable on PC is worthwhile.
Was it Ty the Tasmanian Tiger, Spyro, or Crash? Then absolutely, again for having them playable on PC at the very least.
I think all of these are examples where it makes sense to give them an update because various controls or even systems of today just don't work with the old versions. All of these examples were also done pretty well overall.
On the other hand, I'm more conflicted on games from the last 10-12 years or sooner. Especially if it's like The Last of US Remastered where it just isn't supported well.
But then again, I appreciate getting Spider-Man and Horizon: Zero Dawn on PC, and I believe we only got those because of the remasters? But I would not be buying another remaster of either for PC in even 10 years from today, because what point would there be?
All in all, I think there are many examples where it "is technically fine", but if it's not done well then there was never a point in the first place. The Tony Hawk ones kind of fit here, as they partly feel really good and partly feel really janky - it's nice having them on PC but they are no where near as polished as the other games I mentioned
I was excited to play the remake of my all time favourite game Mafia 1, but it only lasted for about 20 minutes. They put utterly pointless additions in and the AI was somehow way dumber despite being 20 years newer.
I think I read about that remake. Did they also change the soundtrack or am I tripping? I loved Mafia 1 back in the day, and the Django Reinhardt songs in the original were iconic.
I started playing the last of us 2 remastered. I didn't play the original (but did play 1 remastered). I don't know if it was modified "for modern audiences", but it would depend a lot.
Having more characters from Asian or African descent would please me. Making it look more like the (in my opinion) excellent tv series would be less great, but understandable. Removing the whole "military is bad" arc (like they did in the tv show), would suck.
Some games are so old that the technology needs to be sorely updated for modern gamers to be able to understand the controls, and "upating (the controls) for modern audiences" can be good.
Further, older games often have some pretty awful stereotypes in them that don't need to be preserved so we can remember them.
I know Disney's Bambi isn't a video game, but I'll use it as an example that's being re-made. Bambi was made in 1942, and a massive amount of cultural references and ideas just don't make as much sense in the modern era. There are literally things young people today would be like "what now?" in films that old. Sometimes "updating for modern audiences" is removing stuff that just doesn't make sense anymore, or people don't recognize or understand.
Even further, it used to be that "getting updated for modern audiences" was the norm. Anyone remember that hokey fucking Romeo & Juliet with Leonoard DiCaprio in the 90's? Yeah, that was "updated for modern audiences" and it was a smash fucking hit. Back then, updating for modern audiences meant setting it in Verona instead of Venice and swapping swords for guns.
Like if you're dealing with games that were always meant to frustrate and offend like Postal 2 or Conker's Bad Fur Day or Redneck Rampage, you're probably not gonna have a lot of people happy to "update for modern audiences" but there's not much to update about campy schlock humor anyway.
So yeah, sometimes its not great, but I think the worries about it are overblown.
In movies there used to be a joke about how "the black guy always dies first" in action/horror movies because it held true for a long time. Black characters were given bit-roles that were quickly written out of movies. That is no longer the case, but you don't see movies that don't kill off black characters right away as being advertised as "updated for modern audiences" because that's just silly.
"updating (the controls) for modern audiences" can be good.
My only experience of that is when they removed grid based movements from New N' Tasty and forced players to use the analog, trying to walk felt horrible.
But something like the first 2 Fallouts on the other hand can really use a controls overhaul.
But something like the first 2 Fallouts on the other hand can really use a controls overhaul.
Those were literally on my mind! I know Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II got some updated control schemes more recently, including gamepad support, but it seems my favorite Fallouts are still stuck in the past.
God damn it what I would give for a modern Fallout in the style of Baldur's Gate 3. It breaks me how Bethesda has ruined that series.
I think you're looking for Wasteland. They shared a lot of DNA already, and they've got different senses of humor, but Wasteland still has a black comedy angle.