I mean, it heavily depends, and often it is best to play both, but there are still some big differences between video game and movie remakes.

On the one hand, the cultural-temporal difference between video game and movie remakes can often be quite different, specifically with the former usually being way shorter. Games have only been around for 50~ish years, and they have only really been a serious narrative medium for around 30 of those. So most games that get a remake are somewhere in the range of 10-30 years old, whereas movies that get remade can be significantly older. Sure, the cultural context of the 00s and 90s is still different than that of today, but it's still much closer than the 50s, 60s or in many regards even 80s; both because of temporal distance but also due to the big cultural shifts of the end of the cold war and the spread of first consumer computers and subsequently the internet (as well as due to big social shifts in the perception of minorities in that time period, with western society rapidly becoming more liberal between the 70s and the 00s).

More importantly, on the other hand, game remakes can also be much closer to being a 1:1 recreation of the game with only updated graphics and QoL features (that is, of course, not always the case). So they can sometimes be more akin to what would be a remake in the context of a movie, or maybe a directors cut if there are changes [in the game] but they are kept to a minimum. And in those cases, it can often be sufficient to play the remake in order to get a full sufficient understanding of it as a work of art. Sure, playing the original can still grant you some additional (mostly contextual) insight, but it's not necessarily required to gain a full understanding of the narrative itself.