I love how you pick tiny bits and pieces to respond to. "Only a year" huh? Well then, this is "only a year" more and has leaning and pointer controls as well as nearly no competition on this platform. A year later or a week later makes absolutely no difference if you've already had the chance to experience it on another platform really. Clearly, any re-release or later port of a game is intended for an audience that missed it, not for the same people to buy it all over again. And yes, MW2 is a different experience. The campaign is in completely different levels and situations as opposed to being the same campaign with "refinements". The multiplayer maps are also completely different, not just better versions of the past maps. The only thing you could call a "refinement" is the visuals and maybe the levelling up. The game is a different game, not merely a better version of the last one. As for the price matter, lol. I don't see them mention how it's worth 8/10 if you find it discounted or how it will be worth 8/10 in 6 months with the inevitable price drop at most retailers. Again, the price is up to the consumer, as is the possibility of having already experienced the game. Not to the reviewer who should review the game's quality. Games don't, or shouldn't get extra points for being "new". Again, eh, just read the last post which you mostly ignored. I'm not gonna repeat everything just because you decided to pretend the bulk of it isn't there with your response. Here:
Oblivion on the PS3 came out only a year later, was a superior port, and had additional content packed in. That was enough to justify a full price point. What does Modern Warfare on the Wii have? Nothing really, except a spotty frame rate and friend codes. Also, I love Modern Warefare 2, but to say that it is a "different experience" is laughable. The core game-play mechanics are untouched for the most part and it plays the same. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course, but it is more of a refinement then anything.
That is why I quoted Eurogamer's summary, because it clearly states the game is just as good now as it always was. Who the fuck cares anyway? It's up to the user to know if he has already had his fill of that game, not the reviewer to decide for him. If a game gets a 9/10 but I've already finished it even a few days ago on another platform I'm not going to rush to buy it again because a review said so. Reviewers shouldn't be trying to second guess if I have or haven't played it and base its score on that. Oblivion wasn't rated lower on the PlayStation 3 because it came a year later as it was clearly intended for the audience that has yet to play it and the reviews reflected that. The situation is the same with Modern Warfare:Reflex Edition. It's for people who haven't played it (or people who prefer Wii FPS controls). To claim it's rated lower because the reviewer assumes everyone has played the game already so it's not worth a replay is, frankly, stupid. This argument makes no sense. As for sequels reducing the value of the original, that's only when they're better or when they offer the same experience upgraded. MW2 is far from a mere upgrade of mechanics and content. It's a different experience. Tons of the MW content is still great and for someone who hasn't experienced it, should be recommended. Still, the Wii doesn't have the sequel, and all this ignores that the review discussed here claims Modern Warfare is still an awesome game, it plays better on Wii, yet is rated lower with the only notable shortcomings mentioned being visual, in attempts to derail the conversation. Sad.