What makes the perfect remastered game?

Let’s compare the not yet released Diablo 2: Resurrected with last year’s Warcraft 3 Reforged — why is the latter game seen as less than a successful remaster while the former has everyone abuzz with excitement? What makes a game worth remastering, and furthermore, what makes that remaster a success or a failure? In the case of Warcraft 3 Reforged I think fan expectations were linked to speculative statements made by devs in the early stages of the remaster, and that ended up eclipsing the game they actually released — people wanted updated cinematics and cut scenes, for example. These are things that Diablo 2: Resurrected has been sure to promise, and players have responded positively to their conservative, the original game wasn’t broken so we’re just focusing on polish approach to the remaster.

Remasters are tricky beasts — the StarCraft Remastered one was, in my opinion, a success. Perhaps a modest one, but it delivered what players were looking for in a remaster of the older game. So how should Blizzard balance the desire to make the game feel modern and up to date and the desire to preserve and maintain the game that got so much love and respect from players that a remaster became something players wanted? Is putting a stash in Diablo 2: Resurrected and having it work on consoles for the first time ever too much of a departure, or does it do a good job of balancing what modern players want with what the game was before?

I personally applaud both decisions — getting Diablo 2: Resurrected on console is worth the price of admission all by itself, and getting a stash just lets players have functionality they would have gotten from mule characters anyway. But it’s enough of my opinion — what do you think? How should Blizzard approach remasters? What’s the best way to ensure a remaster honors the original game while also being something that feels right being played today?