I don't care about this game at all, but I think that if reviews are supposed to be an accurate measure on the quality of a game they should review a game based on how high of quality it is and not based on whether the game has been released before.

Basically, if someone has never played your favourite games from the previous generation would you say that they're bad and not worth playing today? An unmodified port may not be of any value to people who played the game already, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good game to play for someone who didn't own it in the first place.

It's annoying to keep saying the same things over and over so I'll start quoting myself. 

Maybe it just takes a little repitition to help you understand.

Are you with me yet?

You want ports to be reviewed on an absolute scale as if the original never existed if I'm understanding you correctly, but that isn't how it works (nor how it should work IMO). 

If you want a review of Rygar:  The Legendary Adventure then you should go read a review on Rygar:  The Legendary Adventure.  However if you want a review of a port of Rygar: The Legendary Adventure then you're going to get a review on the differences, the improvements, and the additional things added.  The problem is that when developers are lazy, there aren't any.   If the developers don't put anything new in to add value then what exactly are you buying? 

I can see the argument that if you don't have a PS2/PS3 with BC and have never heard of or played the original game, that Rygar may not be a 1/5 game.  I understand that argument.  The problem is that if you have a PS2/PS3 and a Wii, why would you ever buy the Wii version?  Here is a copy of the PS2 game for $2.95.  Two dollars and ninety five cents.  Let me say that again, two dollars and 95 cents.  Do you really want to tell me that a consumer should pay $49.99 (assuming a full price Wii game) for a repackaged game when they can get a practically identical experience $47.04 cheaper?

A successful port is one that gives people a reason to buy it.  It's one that adds value to the game so even if it's slightly aged, it still offers something.  An amazing port is one that gives people who owned the original a reason to buy the new one.  A shitty port is one that repackages the game with no additional features and expects people to pay retail value for it.

And that is why it gets a 1 out of 5.

So reviewers are no longer looking at the quality of a game, they're simply salesmen trying to tell you which games have the best value for your dollar?

I have never seen someone claim that a hard-cover edition of a book was somehow worse because a paperback verion of it existed, and I have certainly never heard that the French language hardcover of a book was terrible because an english paperback existed and was inexpensively avaliable on Amazon.com.

I've never seen someone take the entire transcript of The Prince, change the title to Machiavelli and You, and try to pass it off as a new book either.