Type 0: You wrote it yourself: if nothing is changed, besides some bugfixes, and the only "new" about it is the platform - it's just a port and not a remake.

Type 1: This is what I would consider a remake. Audiovisually enhanced, maybe with improved user comfort. That's what makes me buy a remake.
(I don't need new content - with maybe the sole exception of old add-ons that get added "for free" to the remake - but which are still seperated from the main game - I want to decide if I play an add-on scenario, etc.)

Type 2: That sounds not so much as a remake to me, but as a complete different game or maybe a successor to the original. So what if the "core mechanics" are still the same? That's saying nothing. Jump 'n' Runs have core mechanics (e.g. double-jumps, or in Giana Sisters the flipping), T/FPSs have their core mechanics (e.g. bullet-time in Max Payne), etc...yet there are thousands of different games in every category who can share /take over that mechanic, without having anything to do with the original game in question.

Type 3: Again: Change of basically everything that made the original game original? Has nothing to do with a remake.

So - Type 1 for me.

Edits to Type 2, to make myself clearer

After buying a PS3 in 2012 I was happy to see many HD ports (type 1) from PS2 games and I loved those even after buying a PS2 the following year. So a good quality port in HD with some quality of life improvements are the best ones IMO.

Type 4 often ends up being too different or feeling like a strange Frankenstein's monster scenario. If done right type 4 can be great but most of the time they just feel weird.

I don't feel like using your categories, which are honestly well thought by the way.

I'm basically a purist when it comes to these things so for me straight 1:1 port is the way unless the original game has crippling bugs or bugged mechanics.
I like a fresh coat of paint in textures and lighting and even geometry and models if the artwork and art direction are faithful and preferably made by the same people who made the original material.

If devs choose to modify mechanics/geometry in general I'd like they to add an optional "classic mode" faithful to the original (yeah dream on...) and in any case my hope always is to have the new content added to the old one and not replacing it.

Different things are enhanced source ports: I recently replayed DooM, DooM ][, Heretic, Hexen I've found that the DooMs are better, IMHO, played in GZDooM and DooMsday suits better to Hexen and Heretic. The added lighing effects to projectiles, vials and stuff really add up to the fantasy look and feeling of those games.

Mouselook in System Shock is cheating.

Type 1 most of the time, there are a few cases where Type 2 seems appropriate as well (can't think of one right now).
Not a fan of Type 0 and 3. If you give the game o acomplete overhaul (Type 3), why not just make a new game? I mean, yeah I know it's less work, but giving a game that treatment still takes quite a few ressources.
...and most of the time it just feels alien. :P

You forgot Type -1, which is portable open source remakes. My preference.

I prefer Type 2s typically. Type 0s and 1s honestly seem lazy these days.

Let's look at Link's Reawakining, for example. Seen here.

As time has gone on, a few of the assets seen in that video have been replaced with ones that more closely resemble the original.

I don't count Type 3s as valid remakes, because if you're going to change so much, what's even the point? (FF7R, etc.)

I am having some trouble differentiating between the two. DadJoke007 used the Infinity Engine Enhanced Edition and REmake as an example. Would the new Resident Evil 2 count as a Type 3 or Type 2?

Generally, I'd always rather have a new IP or a sequel over a remake, and any time a remake is announced I get quite sad or annoyed. Also as a PC player, Type 0 doesn't seem all too relevant.. Unless it's about making older games playable (like Blade Runner).

If I have to pick one though, it'd be Type 1. Literally the same game, just with updated graphics and maaaybe updated sound. The Monkey Island Special Editions come to mind, but again... I just played those in Classic mode even though I wasn't even alive when these classic versions originally came out.

If I never played the original, I would choose Type 1 (why I should play the game with outdated graphics, if I can play the same game with better visuals and some QoL improvements?). And if I did play original, I would prefer Type 3 (and I would treat it as a completely different game).

There are always exceptions, of course. Another Wolrd polygons look much more weird in Hi-res, so I would prefer to play it pixilated.

I think any philosophy of remake can viably be a great game in its own right, it's just that great games in general are rare.

I'm a fan of all types, but I mainly prefer type 1. Would love to see that for Crusader No Remorse.

Usualy between 1 and 2.

I'll change this if the new FFVII changes my mind.

If I'm interested in a remake, it's because I already liked the game itself: ports to platforms I own are always welcome as long as they are functional and not a shoddy work, and some QoL changes are fine (Looking at you, The Last Remnant port to PC) as long as they don't tamper with the game itself.

Game mechanics and overall big changes risk breaking the combination of elements that I liked from the base title itself.

The thing is, what I mean by "Type 2" here is that the game still play pretty similar, down to things like damage formulas and character/enemy stats (except for the occasional rebalancing if the original game's balance was poor). For example, in the SaGa 2 remake, robots still get exactly the same stats from (old) equipment, rapiers stil do Agility x7 damage (- target's Defense x5). Or, Dragon Quest 3 remake plays like the original, but with a new class, multi-target weapons, and new rules for stat growth (that are balanced against the same enemies as in the original).

This is in contrast to something like the SaGa 3 remake, which completely changed the mechanics (for example, levels and experience points are gone, being replaced with an entirely different growth mechanic, swords are now power x Strength rather than power + Strength + Agility, martial arts scale with Agility rather than Strength, weapons and spellbooks have durability (instead of weapons having infijite uses and spells being limited by your MP); the whole game plays entirely differently, to the point where it might as well be an entirely dfiferent game.

By the way, an example of a Type 3 remake available on this site is Ys: The Oath in Felghana, as anyone who's played both that game and Ys III: Wanderers of Ys can tell you. (The game switched from 2D to 3D, of all things, and the bracelets that "replace" the rings serve an entirely different function (rings have passive effects (including healing) while bracelets have flashy damage effects.)

Sometimes alien is fun! (I really *do* enjoy the growth system of the SaGa 3 remake; it's fun to see your stats grow in the middle of a battle, even though it may be completely different from how the original worked.)

To me, Type 2 remakes are more simliar to Type 1 than they are to Type 3. A Type 2 still feels like the original game with major additions to make it feel fresh, while Type 3 feels like a whole nother game. To put it another way, in a Type 2 remake, the strategies from the original can still be applied, with the occasional strategy being broken or improved by the changes. (Sometimes this can be the result of a bug fix; in SaGa 2, there was a bug that sometimes made fast charaters act deat last, which was fixed in the remake.) In a Type 3 remake, however, sometimes the old strategies no longer make sense; for instance, in the original SaGa 3, leveling up a character to level 23 or and changing them into a robot can give you an Iken with the powerful Dance attack; in the remake there is no level 23 or 24, there is no "turning into an Iken" as non-monster party members only have one possible form per character, and there is no Dance. (Also, the original SaGa 3 had robots gaining stats like SaGa 1 humans; in the remake, they're more like SaGa 2 robots, but not as good.)

Type 1 seems the good alternative to my liking.

IMHO Type 0 often seems lazy and a nostalgia money grab.

I prefer Type 1 or 2. The recent Shadow of the Colossus remake was a great example of updates, additions, and tweaks that still felt true to the original game.

My choice would depend on the game being remade or remastered.

NES/Master System: Type 0, but remade to display in a full 16:9 aspect ratio.
SNES/Genesis: Type 0, but remade to display in a full 16:9 aspect ratio.
Playstation/N64: Type 1.
Gamecube/Playstation 2/Xbox: Type 1 or Type 0 (depending on the style of the game)

The last category I would include is older PC games. For all Lucas Arts games, I would follow the style that Tim Schafer used in Grim Fandango, Day of The Tentacle, and Full Throttle. I am also fond of the changes that were made in the Monkey Island Series. When it comes to games made by companies like Sierra, I would use Type 1 or 0 (with a modified aspect ratio).

There would actually be very few games that I would use Type 2 or 3 on, because I think that particular style takes away from the intent of the original creators. Some games have a timeless art style (primarily the NES/SNES era), but they do require minor improvements, such as upgrading the games to a 16:9 aspect ratio. That being said, there was also a generation of consoles (Playstation/N64) that require a more significant upgrade to the graphics and gameplay, but I think there are good examples of how to do this. I am particularly fond of the Crash, Spyro and Medievil remakes. They did a great job remastering those games. I also like what Nintendo did with the Wind Waker remaster. That's a perfect example of how to remaster a Gamecube era game.

I am not a fan of when a company decides to completely remake a game, like Square-Enix is doing with Final Fantasy VII. I was hoping for a good remaster of Final Fantasy VII (graphical improvements and other minor tweaks), but they decided to completely change the game, including the battle system, which didn't need to be changed. However, I would support a total remake if they released a proper remaster, but unfortunately the latest port did very little to improve the quality of the graphics (particularly the prerendered backgrounds). If they actually did a decent job porting the original games, I would probably be on board for a remake.