LMAO that's amazing, I really did bust out laughing.  And I dunno I generally agree with and like Bozon but this review was out there lol, it's one thing to make a meh review, which this could have went under, but the fact that he made a few outlandish claims not based in fact makes it LOL worthy.

Sadly, that's not enough for some people, same as Capcom saying outright CTYD cost almost as much as if would have been an original game.

Although for both, I do admit not disclosing the costs and teams involves in ports from developers has led to this fallacy that ports are quick, cheap, and easy. Since developers haven't really talke about it until recently, gamers have just relied on assumptions to fill the information vacuum.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I just assumed porting was like transfering a movie to home video. I didn't realize it was basically doing the movie over again due to all the data and code that needs to be reworked.

All Im commenting on the review is it's too full of fallacies to be credible. If I were running metacritic, I would discount it due to faulty writing and incorrect facts (same as the gamepro review of TC).

Eurogamer also mentions flaws in the controls...

Looks like its a pretty bad port of an excellent (2 years ago) game

Which flaws, and how do just that mean "pretty bad port"? Try Mortal Kombat Advance if you want to know what that truly means.

Yeah, people act like developers can magically port one console to another.  What I find interesting though is even though W@W was Treyarch's project they got less funding and a smaller team to do it (though they had like 3 games in the same year :s) like activision gave them less funding for their OWN project, but gave them more for CoD MWR, which is IW's.

Didn't IGN have a a lot invested in The Conduit? Matt and Bozo names were in the credits for The Conduit as well?

Be a shame if another FPS came along on the Wii to steal more of the Conduits sales.

Before that, there was just 3 on the Wii, and that had sold just moderately well (it sold a million after WaW came out), so Activision felt confident in giving this project more resources.

Getting a bit annoyed with 'it was good two years ago' comments. It's still a good game now. The Beatles albums were good 40 years ago and they are good now. Some things date a little, but they still are good. Mario 64 was great 10 years ago and it is still really good now.

This is a good game, far better than WaW. Online is smooth too.

It's a stupid mentality. And although I'm not impressed with the Beatles, that is a good analogy for how stupid the notion is. A good game is still good. Some can be overshadowed if things fall short (like the control in Goldeneye), but that's rare.

It's still the "ports are bad by default" line of thinking (and they still wonder why the Super Mario Advance games sold well).

Hmmm... a complete exageration. The word "bad port" doesn't have to be so black and white.

I haven't played Modern Warfare Reflex but I think people are disappointed it doesn't take full advantage of the Wii. Whether it be graphics, control, etc. Just from watching HD videos I can see the textures are very blurry, it has poor lighting, and the frame rate is choppy.

A game like Two Worlds on the 360 is bad port in my opinion due the horrible frame rate. I enjoyed and completed it but visuals really hurt the experience.

Mortal Kombat Advance on the other hand is just broken. It feels NOTHING like the Arcade or any other decent port. And how hard is it to port a SNES game to the GBA?