I do agree Classic has the best character writing (in terms of the bounds), but its non-bound/npc characters are lackluster. Also controversial, but I must mention that remakes are well…remakes. I don't think it's enough to just tack on better graphics. It has to be different from the original, otherwise there's no point. Because then you can just play the original. If you don't think Patho2/3 did the story right that's fine. Just play Classic then, it's a really good game.
No like, I think remakes should have more than one reason to justify their existence i.e
graphics/technical limitations the original was limited by. ui/gameplay improvements story improvements/ironing (i.e fix plotholes, poorly handled subjects,) change the story more radically if you want better other elements (improved/remastered music, if there were limitations i.e orchestral scores instead of MIDI), better acting/voice acting where relevant (looking at you silent hill)
Yes, the remakes have flaws but they can't be the same as the original for the aforementioned reasons. If you don't like 2/3 you can not play them and ignore the fact that they exist. (Just like my Dad does with me!) But I think it's important for 2/3 to be different because Pathologic Classic is sort of an incomplete game and the new games can expand/improve on ideas Classic couldn't/didn't.
Elsewise you could just port the game to more modern technology (like Pathologic Classic HD!).
My opinion, not objective. Just some brainthoughts for you.
