Gaming journalism and professionalism is going down the crapper.

What do you guys think a 7 year old port with absolutely no improvements beyond minimal in controls (assuming you like motion controls over gamepad for this particular genre) deserves?

They weren't that impressed with the first game (gave it a 3), but they tend to knock ports more often, becuase they look at what they think it should be, not the game as it actually is. Not unless the game is a classic they didn't get to review before. They the rush to give it a 4 or 5 even though these offer no more improvements over other ports.

The game got exactly what it deserved in my opinion. I saw it at Walmart today and it is $39.99. That is cheaper than most new games, but still way overpriced for a 7 year old game with 0 improvements.

It really depends on how good the game is ...

I don't think anyone is saying that Rygar (necessarily) should get a higher score, what people are saying is that the reason given for Rygar getting such a low score is fairly moronic. If the game really is a 1/5 game it shouldn't be that difficult to list a long list of serious problems with the game that justify the low score ...

if you review a port with absolutely no improvements you have two choices, you can base it off of the capabilities at the time, in which case the score would remain what it was, or you could compare it to the capabilities of the console it is being ported to. Obviously they seemed to have gone with the latter and I agree with it. A lazy port should not be rewarded with the same score as the original effort, and if that game came out for the Wii right now, it would probably get a similar score. Perhaps it would be a 2 and they were harsher because of it being a unimproved port, but I don't think the same game now would deserve a 3.

1/5 is still WAY too low. that means a game is practicaly unplayable.

I think the "1/5 is too low" camp probably has it right.

If you ask yourself "Does Rygar Wii deserve a 2.0/10 or a 4.0/10?", lets face it, Rygar isn't an unplayably terrible game -- it deserves a 4.0/10 just by nature of decent design, even if it is old. The reviewer is (rightfully so) upset about the port being... well practically meaningless, but honestly, it deserves a higher score than 2.0/10, which is usually reserved for the bottom of the junk heap.

If you've never played the game and only own a Wii, its possibly worth a purchase -- heck the Action Adventure genre has practically no serious competition on the Wii, outside of the recent Tomb Raider game, and the Prince of Persia ports (both of which were quite a bit better than a non-upgraded PS2 Rygar, IMO).

A video review? Are those thing new or something? Great, now even illiterate idiot can review game and judging by this "thing" ,they do.

Just a quick reminder for all my follow nerd out there, nobody want to see your ugly face or hear your girly voice, stick to text.