Why should you buy an updated re-release? Is it just for the nostalgia factor, or do people honestly believe “I liked this game as a child; therefore, I will like it again now that I’m older”?
I mean, really? You think a game is good because you liked it as a kid? You’re seriously going to trust the judgment of an eight-year-old on this.
I got in a fight with my cousin Marcus (age 6) about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles GBA game (this is a different cousin from the one who doesn’t like TMNT 2). He says Turtles GBA has nothing in common with Turtles NES; they are completely different in every way, including character selection. That’s ridiculous! There’s no way I’m letting him make my gaming decisions. But if you’re buying a game because the 8-year-old you liked it, that’s basically what you’re doing: trusting an eight-year-old. That might be good enough for some people who haven’t matured much since the 20th century, but it’s not good enough for me.
Let me decide what games you should buy!
Speaking of remakes, I’m wondering if they’re profitable from a business standpoint, seeing as the current videogame generation has PlayStation Network, Xbox Live Arcade, and the Virtual Console. Companies can easily release the original version of a game, at little/no development cost (although if you want to update the screen resolution so the games look better on newer TVs, like they did with Banjo-Kazooie XBLA, that’s OK, too). A complete graphics overhaul, however, is a lot of work and costs money. It’s definitely cheaper to release the original game on a download service, or to make a lazy port like Mega Man Anniversary Collection. Plus, by not changing things, you avoid fanboy backlash! Why bother going through all the trouble of making a complete remake of an older game, if that’s the case?
I’ve heard it argued that remakes are not for people who enjoyed the original game (?). Instead, they’re for people who never had a chance to play the original, because they were born at the wrong time and don’t know what emulators are. So, the third (fourth?) remake of Super Mario Bros. 3 is aimed toward those kids.
Sounds like a good idea. Let’s return to the conversation with my cousin.
Michael: Hey, let’s play Super Mario Bros. 3. It’s a classic game from 1990.
Cousin: No. It’s old.
Michael: Augh! What do you mean, it’s old? Are you saying if something is old, that means it’s bad?
Cousin: Yes.
Michael: That’s crazy!There are plenty of old things that are still great, like hamburgers or football! Name one thing that’s bad because it’s old!
Cousin: You, Cousin Michael.
…I’m not going to family gatherings anymore.
This is the other picture that appeared when I searched for "kid." I like it better than the first picture.
In conclusion, I think there should be more re-releases and fewer remakes. Also, if anyone’s looking for a new cousin, I’m willing to trade.
Michael Gray is a former staff writer. Most of the work he does for GameCola nowdays is copy/pasted from his blog. 
I should probably point out that my cousin hasn’t actually played TMNT GBA or TMNT 2 for the NES. He just disagrees with me on principle.
Well, I don’t know about cousin trading, but I can say that there are instances of remakes working. Prince of Persia had a fantastic remake that ranks among many people’s top ten games list. I guess remakes work if you either disregard the fanboys and do something completely different, or you disregard the fanboys and improve the original.
Then again, that didn’t really work for Turok. Hmm…
Well, Turok seemed to disregard everything, except the dinosaurs.
Well, though, remakes don’t _always_ have to piss fanboys off. People were pretty happy with last year’s Monkey Island remake—I guess mostly because they didn’t ruin anything in trying to “update” the game for today’s audience.
That is a good point. I believe a good remake should stay close to the original, but also offer something extra that is somewhat substantial. Sonic Adventure DX made the mistake of giving us more bugs, though.