>implying that the votes of GameFAQs users have anything to do with "best"
that's just another form of popularity contest

I could just as easily say that the Metacritic scores of FFVI, FFIX, FFXII and CT being higher than the Metacritic score of FFVII shows that they're better games, but I'm not that kind of petty individual.

The pre-rendered backgrounds and FMVs are not "90%" of the graphics. You spend easily half the game staring at the character renders. They look atrocious. The comparison with sprites isn't applicable at all: FFVI's graphics remain some of the best sprite graphics in history. Dismissing an entire graphic style because some people find it "dated" is not the same as dismissing graphics that have been easily eclipsed by better examples of the same graphic style. FFVII looks like trout compared to FFIX. FFVI does not look like trout compared to Chrono Trigger or Suikoden II. Comparing FFVI's graphics to FFVII's is an apples to oranges comparison. Comparing FFVII's to FFIX's, or FFVI's to those of any modern sprite game, is not.

There are people who want FFVII remade so they can fix glaring flaws with the game other than its graphics. Even people who like the game, for example, generally admit that the translation we got was an atrocious clustersmurf that created unnecessary ambiguities in the story and renders parts of the game almost incomprehensible. The fact that Square felt they had to clarify so much of the game with five dozen (note: this is hyperbole) Ultimanias and similar indicates that they themselves realised they screwed up. If the game stood on its own, they probably wouldn't feel it needed so much clarification. Granted, arguments could be made (and in fact I have made them in some cases) that the clarifications often actually made the original game worse, but regardless, the storytelling in some cases is sloppy and the translation is much worse.

And again: an argument from popularity is no testament to actual quality.