None. Or All. See bellow.
Quite honestly every game ever made has the potential to be rebuilt better as no game ever made was perfect. More technology = more potential, saying games would be worst now because we have better technology is perplexingly paradoxical.
However remakes in general are futile and yet another egregious stab at originality. Sequels, however, adapted to today's technology's, could be quite amusing.
A good example would be pokemon snap. As Indigo_Dingo put it, "a rail shooter where you don't shoot anything"... Well rail shooters are old and needless altogether... Why not pump it up with a cry2 engine and instead make it a game about exploration? Find the pokemon you're looking for in a photo-realistic world and take shots of them. You could even toss in day/night cycles or take it 2 steps further and make an in-game calendar, where you could only find certain pokemons during certain seasons at certain times. Now here's a revolutionary concept. Can you honestly say that wouldn't be orgasm inducing to any pokemon fan? No you can't, and if you can you're a liar.
The problem isn't picking up an old game and updating it to today's technologies, the problem is doing it very wrong just in order to capitalize on a starving franchise (see: ...Just about everything Nintendo does lately). A good example this is Prince of Persia. The original was one of the first "timeless classics" for PC, the "Prince of Persia 3D" was a huge hunk of shit and rusty nuts that should be erased from history, but the new ones after, and including, Sands of Time are pretty damn sweet.
So if you mean remake in the straight sense of the word, then yeah, they would all be bad because remakes suck by default, but if you meant "new sequel game adapted to today's technology", then all games could, potentially, be good, if done correctly.
