Mostly because I always forget about the artifacts and get upgrade focused.  

I doubt you’ll enjoy it as much obviously but RE4R is fantastic and I would just go into it knowing they’re going for a different vibe even if its not the same

I'm more so surprised that people are still calling FF-VII an actual remake while it more so has more in common with a reimagining(or a baffling sequel in this case).

Graphics aren't a huge deal to me, so I'm not too excited over pure visual upgrades (or visual upgrades with minor QOL upgrades). Generally, I think if they do a remake it should add something or do something different. So, prefer the RE4 remake to MP remake.

RE4R is closer to FF7R than Metroid. I would say Bluepoint is pretty much the best at remaking games which are very true to the original gameplay.

Whereas Capcom is king at remaking and modernisering old games. Though I would say FF7R still takes the cake for best modernised remake. The resi remakes are great though and Capcom could also remake the Devil May Cry games,to the level of DMC5.

RE4r , RE2r and FF7r are some of the best games ever made and it proves that remakes are always the best, but remasters are some time masterpieces like the RE1 remaster for GameCube which is still the best RE game to date and probably will always be

REmake 4 is better than Metroid Prime, and I say this as someone who's had Prime as their favorite game for years. REmake 4 is just ridiculously good.

Having played more of RE4make, it's probably one of the best reboots, remakes, or rewhatevers. They've changed just enough so that it feels fresh, while maintaining the original feel. And even though I think that ultimately the original will be my preference, this is kind of like getting to play one of my favorite games for the first time again, and that's pretty cool. 

I feel like I didn't word this one effectively; my bad.
What I meant was less "which is the better game" but rather "which do you think is the better approach to reviving a classic game, a complete design a la RE4R, or a graphical rebuild that keeps the design intact a la Prime Remastered".

I fall into the “room for both” category.

A good remaster maintains the gameplay and art style with some QOL updates - a bad remaster changes core mechanics (similar to how Dawn of Souls replaced the unique Final Fantasy MP system with a boring ass generic mp system, it not only ruined a lot of the flavour of the game, but broke the balance. On top of that, Dawn of Souls changed the art style.

Remakes are more like an adaptation of an old game into a new game, sometimes even changing the genre entirely, but maintaining story and characters, locations and such. I think there’s a big place for this as well. These can be done right and wrong. I don’t think there’s a wrong way to do this kind, but I find that if they’re too close to the source material, I’d probably prefer a remaster than a game that feels like a perversion of the original experience: for example, Sword of Mana as a remake of Mystic Quest - it followed the same structure, but made bigger maps and a bigger story, but in the end it felt extremely bloated—the original was sharper and more effective. Super Castlevania though, now that was a fantastic remake of the first game.