Just because a game "wasn't bad" doesn't make it excusable to repackage it with no worthwhile updates and try to pretend it's a new game.

Seriously, are you so desperate for Wii games that you're willing to accept a port of a 7 year old PS2 game?  I'm not.

X-Play isn't judging it as a new game, they're judging it as a port.  Rygar doesn't deserve a 1/5 because it was a bad PS2 game, it deserves a 1/5 because it offers no new worthwhile features or gameplay (according to the review) compared to the original.

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.

^^^^
@ the above post, thats exactly how i feel.

i was SO confused at gamespot when the wii version of RE4 got a lower score than the gamecube version, even though in the review hey said its much more superior than the gamecube version

^let him get to teh madden series then finally we wil see a negative review

I guess I'm the only one picking this game up huh?

I never played the one back in 2002, and Ari - yes; Waggle means that much to me? Are you confused by this?

@WoW

You have a point, but at least make it something that can be right or wrong not just an opinion that your obviously passionate about. (after all if you make it something that can be right or wrong and your correct then truely those must be words of wisdom =P)

The more content on your platform the better, this guys function is to deal with the subjective and toss a finite number on something that has built its' foundation from something still abstract to him. (Hard job indeed)

I'd say there was a time Rygar was good enough, the only differences between then and now aside from time is that 1/2 the market share is in HD and the other 1/2 is on motion controls.

Rygar uses motion controls - cash in or not, it changed with the times.

I don't think you quite understand my opinion so I'll give you an example.

Let's go with the original Super Smash Bros. game for the N64.

Let's say Nintendo decided tomorrow to repackage it as a full Wii game (not VC) and all they did was add Wiimote/nunchuck controls to it.  They add nothing else.  No new characters, stages, modes, music, or anything are added.  What kind of rating should the game get?  Back when it was released it was a 8-10 out of 10 game for a lot of people.

Now we have SSB Wii with only 12 characters, no improvements, and more standing next to SSBB with roughly 3 times as many characters and stages along with loads of content.  Do you think that this SSB port as a Wii game should be 9 out of 10 like it was for the N64? 

I don't think so and neither would X-Play.

That review was not a 1/5 review.

Some of the Wii comments were on-target (swinging for control is tiring and a remake like this is old). Meanwhile, some were just mean (description of the machine as fun box (not the exact words, but it describes the gist of it), description of controller as "white candy bar").

The content reminded me of a 2/5 review. And it was much less negative than the review of Mario Tennis -- which got a 2/5: http://g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1910/Mario-Power-Tennis-Review.html

It is interesting how Xplay went from being in the tank for the Wii (see the hosts 2006 end of year awards) to being anti-Wii (questioning whether games should even be on it -- such as No More Heroes).

Mike from Morgantown

You're arguing something entirely different than you think you are though ...

Saying a game like Super Smash Bros. shouldn't receive the score it once did because it doesn't offer the quality or value of similar games that have been released in the past decade (like Super Smash Bros. Melee and Super Smash Bros Brawl) is quite a bit different than saying that Super Smash Bros should get a 1 because it is an old game ... One way takes into account how the game stands up against current games and is an actual evaluation of its current quality, the other is an arbitrary evaluation that has no relation to the quality of the game.

Once again, as I said in my initial post, it is one thing to say that the game hasn't aged well or that the Wiimote controlls take away from the experience but to review a game based on its age alone is not a fair metric.

To add to that, you cannot give a game that is playable a 1. I mean, they do not say the game is unplayable or riddled with bugs so how can you rate a game that has those problems now? This game may not be good today, but I assure you there are much MUCH worse games on every console out today than this game.

I understand the point of this rewiew is to encourage people to NOT buy this game, but lets be fair here. Is this game less entertaining than the Kids Sports games which are basically unplayable?

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.