While this could technically fall under the idea of an addition, I am going to keep it separate. Reimaging is basically giving the original game a graphics overhaul, video games tend to progress faster than any other medium. The visual�s of games a scant six years ago are even a bit lack luster by today�s standards. Since we are only just now having realistic graphics and are minds are no longer filling in spot the graphics can�t a game getting new graphics will likely be an increasingly common thing. For me I see two different types of reimaging that are possible. Games that are redone graphically due to the low quality of graphics in the time period they were released and games that are redone simply for the sake of vanity. While a Final Fantasy VII remake doesn�t actually exist there is a good reason while people were flipping out when that PS3 tech demo was showing. Anyone who has had the chance to play through seven recently knows that while the core game play is still amazing, the graphics are so dated and the 3d models so poor that it is almost laughable when you sit and actually look at the characters. A new set graphics wouldn�t improve the game but it would make it easier to look at. An example of vanity would be the HD 8/16-bit game mock-ups. Does Super Mario World really need a graphical boost, of course not, it looks perfectly fine the way it is. But damn if it don�t look fucking gorgeous with HD sprites.
I know that some people are critical of gamers for getting really excited about a remake and then barely noticing something new and original. I don�t really think that it�s entirely their fault. Hopefully the reasons above should give some insight as to why we tend to do that. If a new IP is up to snuff we�ll know about it and hopefully that word of mouth we cause will help it a long. I just don�t think remakes should take blame for a new IP failing. You wouldn�t necessarily blame a DVD of a new movie failing because Rocky just got released on Blu-ray, would you?