If you've got the ability to play the original, it still held up fantastically when I last played it properly (2-odd years ago).

I tried emulating it a few years before that when I didn't have any workable screen for my PS2 and that was not so good. A game that pushed the original hardware to its limit also pushed the emulator past its limit. Might be better with more powerful hardware than mine?

However, I've heard the remake is perfectly good, and surely easier to play with modern PC hardware!

I would highly recommend the original if possible. I feel the remake removed a lot of the atmosphere and direction in the pursuit of showing off asset fidelity. The original holds up amazingly well for its time and feels like playing a painting.

I remember "playing" it briefly somewhere within PS2-era.

And the absolutely horrid framerate is the thing that I remember most about the game. It absolutely ruined the experience for me and made me stop 'trying' to play it.

And no, it isn't me a primarily a PC gamer complaining about 30fps. It was like 15-20fps. It's was absolute ass, bordering on unplayable.

It's like you weren't grappling with a colossus, instead you're constantly fighting the laggy 15fps framerate.

And I don't mean it just by the standards of today, I mean by standards of the day.

God of War games hit 50-60fps pretty well on PS2 and had all the epic bosses and set pieces

as an old guy I would always play a remastered version aslong as the models were not aletered too much. IE higher definitions, smooth animations , great. Complete overhaul? I woudl be able to assess with a few seconds of gameplay footage if it looks wonky. Ive seen many a remastered game just look awful within seconds , garish colors, terrible new effects ebing added, high fidelity model swith weird new styles. In summary Im not a purist, as long as its the same "look" the more remastered the better.