RE1 on Gamecube was a remake. And that is the defination of what I expect from a remake. Any major changes, is a reimagining, or reboot. And not the proper use of the term. If RE1 removed the tank controls, or locked angles. I wouldn't count it as a remake.

A reboot is just restarting the series with a new take and ignoring the pre-existing canon on the process. RE1 was indeed a remake, it changed controlls (the controlls are not the same the origninal was, not by a longshot, even tough I think it gives you the option to use the old ass tnak controlls), item placements changed, map layouts, enemys and puzzles got re designed. A lot changed, they chose to keep changes ar a minimum there but it was a remake, from the ground up, rebuilding everything and changing things when they felt like it.

A remake is rebuilding a game from scratch using the original as a guideline, how much it changes is entirely up to the developers, when they just reskin the thing and tweek controlls a bit its a remaster, as in the new Crash Trilogy comming later this year.

Hmm, I don't think you do though?
For starters, when I said natural, I meant within the bounds of the game. For example, if a character is commonly doing a lot of acrobatic moves, leaping over buildings and bosses, it could seem unnatural for them to have their path blocked by a tiny cardboard box, due to a lack of a jump button, or a way to just walk over it. If the game designers want to block that path, they may need to use something more beliavable than a small cardboard box. Like a locked door.
A cardboard box could work as a natural path blocker in a different game, but it depends on how the game is designed.
In the case of FF7, I can imagine that the more focus it has on fidelity and action packed sequences, the more distracting the contrast of going from all of that to standing around and waiting for your turn will be. I think that's why they're incorporating the ATB element into something else/while you're doing something else now. (The gauge that fills up when you're actively attacking).

If you think back, a lot of things in older rpg's we didn't take for face value, but sort of as a "metaphore" for something else, in lack of a better term.

For example, random encounters. We didn't actually believe that enemies were invisible and then all of a sudden spawned out of nowhere, right? The crew obviously ran into them, but we could only imagine what that would look like. But we accepted it as a graphical limitation at the time (in most cases.) Same thing with Cloud and co. just standing around, blocking machine gun bursts with their faces while doing nothing, waiting for their turn. Obviously they weren't so stupid that they actually fought that way. But again, we could only imagine how the fights really played out.

Well, when technical advances get as far as they have today, where they can show us more clearly how the fights really played out, and attack sequences are a lot more detailed, flashy and immersive, going from 100 to 0 can stand out a lot more in contrast to the rest. It's what the rest of the game is like that determines if an element feels natural in that game or not. Not what it's like outside our door.

Secondly, I'm not suggesting that every game should be made the same way. It's the other way around. I'm glad Persona 5 is turn based for example.
There should be different styles of games made. But I acknowledge that elements like turn based can feel more or less natural in a game, depending on how you design the rest of it.

I don't understand why so many are opposed to ARPGs. Is it because you don't have as much time to down all your Rockstars and Twinkies?

What I said about graphical limitations in the part you highlighted was specifically about random encounters.
The reason Midgar Worm was the only monster we could see on screen, chasing us soon after we stepped out of Midgar, and no other monsters, was because of technical limitations. We understood that the enemies weren't really invisible. That's what I meant by accepting it as a graphical limitation.

When I said "same thing about Cloud blocking a machine gun burst with his face", I was refering to what I wrote after, that it was understood by the players that the crew never actually got hit by bullets as part of the story, but that how the battles really turned out was for the most part left to our imagination.

Some times these things are because of technical limitations, other times it's a design choice. But what I'm getting at is that some elements no longer feel natural as certain things change in games. Such as graphical fidelity.
In FF7 no voice acting didn't feel unnatural, partially due to it not being the norm at the time, and the fact that they had no mouths to move didn't make it worse. It would feel very unnatural however if we see their detailed faces in the remake, but no one ever speaks.
In old Resident Evil games there were loading screens behind every door and ladder. Today that is rarely the case, as doors and ladders can even be part of action filled gameplay segments. You can shoot holes through a door, or kick down a ladder that an enemy is climbing.

Being action based doesn't make it a non-rpg though

......

Different director, Tabata completed FFXV and made alot of changes to the original combat system designed by Nomura. Nomura is known for making excellent action RPG combat systems in Kingdom Hearts. 

How does your post make sense?

Action based is more mainstream? You know we are talking about FFVII, right? What is more mainstream than that?

I don't understand why so many are opposed to ARPGs. Is it because you don't have as much time to down all your Rockstars and Twinkies?