I consider remakes and remastered editions to be
really different. I strongly support remakes, because they're capable of bringing out the potential (well, the good ones, at least) of games restricted by their original console's hardware: consequently, a lot of remakes will be completely different from the original games. Want an example? Take Fire Emblem Echoes.
This is what the original game, Fire Emblem Gaiden, looked like.
This is what its remake looks (same map). And I can assure you everything else has been revolutionized as well.
Remastered, however, are just excuses to pump more money out of existing games. Most times all they do is upscale textures and give some nice touches here and there, and that's it. My opinion on the matter depends on how far apart the original game and its remastered are released.
Grim Fandango Remastered? I'll take it. It was released in 1998 and it could be hard for new gamers to find a way to acquire it legally. The game itself looks...not much different, yeah, but the upgraded graphics are just a plus. Also, last but not least, it wasn't published at full price. I think that's enough reason to justify its existance.
The Last of Us Remastered?
Ugh. It was released
a single year after the original game's release (2013), and even though I can see why you'd want to port such a successful game to your newest console, why would you propose it again at full price? Unless my memory fails me, they didn't even have any special promotions for those who had already bought the game on PS3. I just can't wrap my head around it, to be fair.