I don't see how this is a defense of remakes. Most PlayStation 3 games still play fine and don't need to be remade. This is like saying any movie that's aged even a little bit needs to be remade from scratch.
Remakes are for games like Resident Evil 2 and Final Fantasy VII that are outdated as hell and are a burdon to play. Not for games that still hold up but don't have shiny 2022 mechanics and graphics. This is like refusing to watch a movie just because it came out more than twenty years ago or because it's in black-and-white. You're missing out at that point.
Well, that seems a little hypocritical of you. By your logic and comparison to movies, RE2 or FF7 also don't need a remake, because they are essentially "older" movies. And FF7 is definitely not "a burden to play". It's a classic turn-based RPG. The remake completely changed the gameplay mechanics and "feel". I still enjoyed it a lot, because I am not overly precious about older games and how they are "supposed to be" in my or your subjective view. The older versions are still available. I can separate the two.
As every video game sequel should. Playing Batman: Arkham Asylum after Arkham City and Arkham Knight feels limiting in comparison. This isn't a reason to remake every game with a sequel from scratch and it supports PlanetSmasher's slittery slope argument, if anything.
It's not up to you or me to decide what reasons make a remake viable or necessary. Would TLoU1 be on top of my personal list of games that need a remake? No, but they are doing it. Is it certainly also a cash grab? Sure, and I will gladly pay a reasonable price to play that game and am still excited.
If you're okay with different creative teams redoing someone's work from scratch over and over indefinitely in a medium that already has expiration date/preservation issues, don't bother arguing that video games are art. At that point, they're just virtual toys.
First,
it's the same team redoing their own work. It also seems a little weird to argue what is art or not. It's completely subjective. Remaking or changing something doesn't devalue anything, make it more or less artistic. Art discussions in general are silly.
One of my go-to examples is how the Demon's Souls remake radically changed the atmosphere, art direction, and "feel" of the original game and no one really seems to care. Video games are the only so-called "art" medium where people don't give a crap about authorship and creator intent, and it's outrageous.
Using Demon's Souls as an example is very ironic, because the actual creator of the original really enjoyed the remake. It seems that hardcore fans are more sensitive to those kinds of "changes" and pretend to have more ownership than the original artists. And no, video games are not the only "art", where changes are made constantly. Look at movies. They not only have remakes, but director's cuts, theatrical cuts and different versions in general. Famous paintings are also repurposed constantly and used in different contexts.
This just sounds like some elitist perspective if I am being honest. It's not up to you, me or anyone else to decide what should be considered "art", what games need remakes or what is unnecessary.
If you dislike or disagree with a remake, then that is totally fair. Don't buy it. Speak with your wallet. It's really easy ;)
I just don't see the point of complaining about it.