Hey, all. 

So, there's currently a split decision between me and someone else to review the upcoming Dead Space Remake.  Given how much I liked retreading The Last of Us Part I, I thought this could be a great opportunity too.  Just one difference:

-Part I: I played the OG Last of Us to completion twice.  First time was through Hard & the next was New Game+ on Grounded (which I think was like a DLC bonus or added in an update).  So, that experience was just re-sparking my memory.

-Dead Space: I only played some of OG with my best bud and watched a livestream or two in the background (i.e. not research purposes).  I kinda get the overarching concepts from other sources too: he was just a buckethead until DS2, the HUD layout, slicing up monsters, the weird Uni-something religion, etc.  

With this background in mind, here's the question: is something inherently lost (or perhaps incomplete) if a critic reviews a game remake without ever completing the original work?  Does that affect the overall "professionalism" in your opinion?  Doing your best to strip me out of the equation, answer yes or no in the poll.  Feel free to expand on answer in the comment too.

Second EDIT: I'll probably lock this poll after a week (from its original post).

Yes and no.

If somebody has played the original you'd expect their review to be more in comparison to how the original was. Is it better? Is it worth getting the new version if you already played the old version? Has anything from the original been lost? etc.

If somebody hasn't played the original then the review would be more about the game as a standalone today. Probably more forgiving of elements that have been removed from the original, but less forgiving if any seemingly outdated stuff remains. Would be more relevant to those that never played the original too, is it worth getting today even without any nostalgia for the original, or not?

So, it depends on the audience. For people that played the original, the reviewer not having played it would make the review less meaningful, but for those that didn't play the original, the reviewer not playing it would probably be better since they don't really care if anything's been lost of if it's a positive/negative piece of nostalgia.

I don't think so, at least for me personally anyway. I never played the OG Dead Space game so reviewers who haven't either would likely be more relevant to someone like me.

No, it would not be necessary. However, some appreciation of the history behind the original work would be of benefit.

I've played plenty of remakes were the original simply wasn't easily available or hadn't interested me.

No, though playing the original would perhaps be helpful, it's not necessarily a "superior" opinion. Just a different one.

Yes and no.

The added previous experience that permits someone to already a game and it's foundation is always a net positive in my book when it comes to.e to make the comparison list and see what was upgraded or changed for the worst.

Yet, there's no fault in simply having a fresh and new perspective from someone who has not played the prior original before(aside from a bit of web osmosis).
Though at worst you might look like the original goofy IGN reviewer of Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive Edition xD

No, because a review can also be targeted to those who never played the original. The writer should probably mention whether or not the writer played the original. Especially remakes of games that are decades old haven't always been played by the people who buy these games to begin with.

The bolded is an interesting point too.  When it finally comes out, I might rehash this argument for another example: System Shock Remake.  Only that one (as it stands) I've only accumulated info via cultural osmosis, as someone else put it. 

Maybe the poll wouldn't be so close in those conditions.  Perhaps there's something tied to OG Dead Space's availability that gives a heightened expectation, like I ought to do my homework.  System Shock is often cited as a notoriously unapproachable game without mods, and still quite dated with them, so the audience would intuitively rein in expectations.

What's lacking is a bit the element of surprise - especially if you played the original, but even without, most plot points and especially twists are out the bag now.

Other than that, I'd say no.

If you never played the originals and do not have any intention to play them I actually advice to DO NOT read reviews that compare the two versions