Some people just can't get over the fact that nothing lasts forever, and that change is constantly evolving everything around us(Except War. War never changes). Its just a fact of life. But why is it that no one can apply this logic to video game remakes and revivals?

What is the first thing you hear(and most likely, think) about when a franchise is revived? Do you hear about the new features? Eventually, yes, but not at first. First, there is a giant shit storm of disapproval from the fans of the "original". And, oddly enough, its normally coming from the biggest fans of the franchise, normally people that have been clamoring to get a sequel or a remake for years, ever since they finished the original.

Its comical to even imagine the instant 180 that this person's brain must take when this situation arrives.

Pre-announcement: "JESUS, they need to make a new X"
Remake/revival of X announced: "hooray..."
Seconds later: "You know what, this new one will SUCK BALLS, its COMPLETELY not the one I played 20 years ago."

This is literally exactly what happens in people's minds. And they are right, to a degree, but not the way they want to be.

One of the things people become angry about with remakes are new features, or new gameplay, or a tweaked anything. Well, this is simply because they are viewing a remake in the wrong light. When a game is remade or redone it is not just literally making the EXACT game again. If you want to do that I have good new for you, YOU CAN! Its called "playing the original". Its an odd concept, but some crazy people do actually play games that are more than a year old. A remake or revival is like a "re-envision" of an old franchise brought into modern technology. It is meant to be similar to, but not a carbon copy of, the its predecessor.

Another of the common complaints is that a new game will somehow "destroy the franchise". Maybe its simply the thinking that "if my favorite games franchise isn't popular it makes me feel bad", but this has always been an odd argument to me. A new game will not tarnish an old one. Period. It is just baffling to me that someone would think that a new game has to be good as if it will retroactively destroy another title. Did Castlevania 64 make you hate the other titles in the series? Did Parasite Eve II make me look down upon Parasite Ever? Did Bomberman Act: Zero maim my childhood memories of older version? Obviously the answer to all of these Questions is no. Games should and will be viewed based on their own merit, not the franchise they come from.

I do think that this behavior can be stopped fairly easily though through a few simple methods. First, stop comparing the new game to the old game. They will not and should not be exactly the same. View it as a new title and work from there.

Secondly, (this is more of a developer thing) don't listen too much to what people have to say about your title. Take input, of course, but don't listen to everything that is said on the internet. Some people just don't know what they are talking about so always keep in mind the words of bill Cosby, "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody". Make the game that you want to make, not the game that 30 or 40 people on an internet forum want. The more a title is changed based on the opinions of people outside the project the more it becomes watered down from its original vision.

And lastly, people need to accept that sometimes a game does not lend itself to a remake or revival. Some games, like Beyond Good and Evil, are great stand alone titles and really have no need to be revisited. Again, if the original was so great that you need more of it, then do just that, and play the original again.