I am seriously starting to feel a deep hate towards the concept of a game remaster.
Yes, I get it, when the game goes from an early 3D to a full phorotealistic experience. (Mafia might be a good example)
But most modern remakes literally just remove emotional intentional lighting, simplify animation, remove the 20 post-release patches and call it a day... In the better case. In the worse case, they also remove licensed music and change character models for uglier ones.
If a game came out since 2009 (The year, when photorealism in games got beyond the uncany valley), I am just not buying the remake. I want the original vision.
Ok, last screenshot just to get the point across.
Original: Art
Remake: Whatever the fuck is
considered a modern technology these days
@LukeAlmighty They added the level back in an update, but the remaster is still inferior gameplay-wise and missing various details, even though the graphical changes are mostly for the better. The problem is that remasters are supposed to be low cost and porting the PC version that's on CryEngine 2 to CryEngine V would have probably cost more like making a new game, so they picked the shitty PS3/360 version that was on CryEngine 3, same version as Crysis 2, which they just remastered.
Crysis 2 Remaster is good imho. It's identical to the original, but the lighting is better plus it has raytraced reflection. SVOGI is great, the low cost more than makes up for it's shortcomings.
Crysis 3 Remaster is ironically shit anyways because it avoids the criticisms you are making here. In order to not compromise it's artist driven lighting they didn't add SVOGI, so the game looks the same except it has raytraced reflections and grass updates at 60hz instead of 15. So the remaster is just pointless.
@matrix
Thanks man. 
Yes, I heard about the reason for the missing level, but I still find it absolutely hilarious.
b e a r d
@LukeAlmighty the last of us comparisons hurt the most. they really fucked up until dawn too.
@LukeAlmighty i've said it before but i think shooting for hyperrealism instead of realism is always going to result in a better looking game. when you shoot for pure realism, anything that's even slightly off is going to look like shit. with hyperrealism, your brain glosses over that stuff more often. the style that the original last of us has is this very visceral and sharp look, and it looks way better for it. the remake and the sequel go way softer on the rendering and try to make things look "more realistic" but that makes them just look ugly and off-putting.
you can see this 100% in play for the silent hill 2 remake as well. the character models are "more realistic" but they look so much worse because they have no style whatsoever. same thing with the world itself, especially the otherworld. it just goes for realism instead of looking very distinct.
I wouldn't even accuse the devs of being lazy or foolish, it's just a shame.
Crisis RTX remaster is literally missing a level, because they didn't want to bother the consoles with that "DEMANDING" shit.
The last of us didn't even come out on PC. Remake did. A remake, that completely reworked anatomy of the main character.
And when it comes to the removal of lighting, I AM NOT JOKING. Just take a look at the Until dawn. They always just temove the old lighting, and replace it with a "modern" one. And... They call it a day. But, when the original was created, each scene was payed huge attention to, in order to get a particular cinematic effect. That is why the remakes look like shit. Because you're comparing an artistic precision to a generalized solution.