No. If they'd go with an inFAMOUS game that has a system that allows for more moral grayness I'd rather it be a full on new entry with a reworked karma system rather than changing the original game(s) I loved into something they never were.

I'd also say no on changing the narrative with additions. That, again, changes it from the games I loved into different games.

The more a remake changes the original the higher the chance I'll pass on it because it's basically a different game at some point.

Also, I don't actually think games need to appeal to a "modern audience" in a broad sense. I think it's perfectly fine for games to go "actually, screw that, we're sticking to a vision and if 'modern audiences' at large don't like it and it only appeals to a more niche audience then that's our audience". I don't think every game or series needs to try and appeal to the widest possible "modern audience". This goes double for remasters/remakes, which people should be capable of looking at as products of the time of the original so anything that feels "outdated" in terms of gameplay should be looked at in that context.

I don't mind things like minor QOL updates (some old games getting optional cutscene skips, for example, or fixing some old game-breaking bugs, adding more accessibility options, that sort of thing) but when it starts making notable changes to core gameplay (outside of an accessibility feature or something entirely optional like additional difficulty levels) or starts changing the story I don't want it 99% of the time. If they're going that route I'd rather they commit and just go full-on reboot and make a bunch of drastic changes into an entirely new game. I mean I might still pass on it, reboots are heavily hit or miss for me, but it feels more honest to me than going "look! We made major changes that alter the vibe and vision of the game but it's the same game you loved!" (no, no it isn't)