Zechs Merquise

Here are my final scores: Let's get some final completion screens up from everyone who ended up loving the game and then took on the challenge to get all 70 medals! There's a lot more to this game than many reviewers gave it credit for, I found the challenge to be spot on and difficult in places and there was plenty of content - certainly more than Lylat Wars. It is a game that rewards multiple plays and a game where beating the final boss isn't really the end.

I did, a week or so ago, I commented on your Miiverse post! Getting all 70 was a real challenge, had fun with it.

I just started playing this tonight and cleared the first two worlds. Mixed feelings on this one, here are my first impressions: + Incredible graphics and presentation, and I mean incredible. Looks beautiful on my HD TV, really eye popping and unique too. + Superb music and sound + All round high production values, attention to detail and polish. + Unique play style makes for a fresh experience. + Loads to collect and see. + Tank level is awesome, could have played a full game of that - You spend the entire time looking at the gamepad, you don't use the TV so you never really get to appreciate the beauty of it. - Feels like a mobile game and that the control scheme isn't deep enough for a full console game. - At times it is fiddly Bit of a mixed bag for me so far. Definitely has the Nintendo charm, just feels a bit shallow as the controls limit the experience.

Well GT5 sold less than Black Ops, MW3, Black Ops 2 and GTAV making it the fifth biggest selling game. I also count 32 games on the PS3 selling more than 4.7 million units. Either way, they are impressive numbers, and as I said, a GT style game would be welcome on the Wii U, but the priority should lie with FPS and action based games which dominate the gaming landscape, yet are almost completely lacking on the Wii U.

Hey, I'd love a new Wave Race and a new Excitebike and a new 1080! I would love a new F-Zero and own and have beaten every home console F-Zero, it's a great franchise. I just try to base what I write here on facts (sales figures and industry trends) rather than just what I personally wish for. If I had my wish list, we'd all be playing Battalion Wars III, directing troops on the gamepad and participating in epic Battalion Wars online battles. But we're not, and will probably never be as the games never sold very well. Also, we aren't getting a Fire Emblem either, which is very disappointing as the gamepad would be perfect for moving troops around. I can honestly say the Wii U has lacked so many big franchises - Animal Crossing, Metroid, F-Zero, Battalion Wars, Fire Emblem and Excite games. It also looks to be the first console to ever lack a distinct entry to the Zelda series! Sad times.

Now that is something I wholeheartedly agree with and something I feel as an exclusive would shift consoles due to the nature of the game and the importance of FPS sales to shifting consoles and the industry in general. What I fail to understand, is that with all their cash, Nintendo didn't buy Free Radical or any of the other talented studios that have struggled recently. I'm not talking about buying lame ducks, but buying up talent and absorbing them into Retro or letting them stand on their own two feet and produce games that the Nintendo library is sorely lacking! I don't think big name racing games are anywhere near as important as they once were - I wouldn't be against a Gran Turismo style game on the Wii U, but ultimately, across both the XBO and PS4, only one racing game appears in either console's top 20 games - Forza 5.

I agree it is new ideas that Nintendo needs in some respects. But you have to be honest and look at what is selling in the market, look at the state of your competition, are they doing better than you, or worse than you? What are they doing differently? What is working for them, and what isn't working for them? Let's all be fair, Nintendo wish they had sold 40 million Wii U consoles, Sony have sold 40 million PS4 consoles. Look at the games that drive those Sony sales. FPS games aren't the be all and end all, but they are the most popular genre on the market at the moment, and Nintendo can either ignore that, or they can learn from it. If Nintendo can't ensure the big franchises like COD and Battlefront, they need to step in and make something that does stand in, and if they can't use that vast pot of cash they sit on to buy someone who can! Awesome post! My apologies, the Wii is obviously more powerful than I believed. I know it has some fantastic looking games - Resident Evil Darkside Chronicles, Monster Hunter 3, Modern Warfare 3, Red Steel 2, Muramasa, Dead Space Extraction and A Boy and His Blob all looked spectacular and Nintendo's first party efforts were often beautiful and pushed the system to its limits. What I meant to say is that the Wii was clearly a lot less powerful than the 360 and PS3 and appeared closer to the original XBOX and GC.

Why the hell are you labouring this clearly ridiculous point about F-Zero? The last F-Zero game sold 650,000 units. Lets say a new F-Zero game also sold 650,000 units (not an unreasonable assumption). Lets say with each F-Zero game a console was sold (totally unreasonable and utterly unrealistic), that would add 650,000 console sales, which is inconsequential in the big scheme of things and less than the PS4 sells in one month. But in actual fact, a new F-Zero would probably at best shift less than a hundred thousand extra consoles. This talk of F-Zero is pathetic, it's like talking about sticking a plaster over the stump of a limb that this haemorrhaging blood.

When you look at the big sellers that are pushing both the PS4 and XBO, there isn't much variance. There's a huge amount of shooters, action games and FIFA. There's not really much variance - the fact is though, Nintendo have missed out on all of those games - Battlefront, Black Ops, Advanced Warfare, FIFA - those are the games driving sales. This is why I am so curious that people are banging on about F-Zero, if Wipeout or Extreme-G were dominating the all format charts I would be screaming for Nintendo to best them with their own brand of futuristic racing games. But that isn't the case, if Nintendo were to go all out and try for something more financially risky, it should be a killer FPS or action title to rival COD or GTA. I agree on Animal Crossing and Mario Tennis - both were lame entries in otherwise wonderful series (not that I play Animal Crossing, but the games do attract a large audience and this one hasn't). I disagree about NSMBU, that has sold really well and Yoshi has always been a 2D platformer - and was a very good game. Yes, yes, yes, I wrote a huge post about the Saturn when discussing something with you before, and I think you've basically just regurgitated it to me 1) $100 more expensive 2) Rushed to release with few games 3) Rushed release burned bridges with retailers who then refused to stock it 4) No money for marketing 5) Public distrust over previous flops Annnnnnd the Saturn was done! Everything is perceived value, everything. Nothing has an inherent value, simply a price people are willing to pay at the given time due to circumstance - for example a cup of water to a man in a desert is worth far more than a cup of gold, however a cup of gold to a man sitting by a lake is worth far more than a cup of water. But back to the point, the Wii U to the general public or the casual observer is not more powerful than the PS3 or the 360 - those consoles all fall within the same bracket when it comes to power, just like the GC, XBOX and PS2 did. Now I know the Wii was roughly the same power as the GC, XBOX and PS2, but it was released at £175, with a game and a controller and offered something genuinely tantalising at that price. The Wii U came out at £300, when its competitors were on the shelf for much less with games that looked the same! You say what if Nintendo had launched something that showed off the capabilities - nothing on the Wii U even now looks so drastically better than 360 or PS3 games that it would justify a £300+ purchase. I have no problem with consoles being less powerful than the competition or not pushing graphical tech as far as it can go, but that must e reflected in price! The Wii reflected the console's lack of power compared to the 360 by being much cheaper and being within the impulse purchase price range! Well, actually you're wrong. Exclusive games aren't selling consoles, third party games are. The PS4 has only two exclusives in the top 20 best selling games. For the first time ever, exclusives are not what console sales are hinging on. The trend is now that big third party cross platform titles are shifting systems and dominating sales. These are what Nintendo missed out on! This isn't a theory, it's a fact, look at the sales charts! This is utterly groundless. I don't think there is any 'studio' loyalty in the world of films. I have never in my life heard of anyone choosing to watch films produced by a certain studio (take FOX for example) because FOX made other films they liked. Gaming is totally different in that regard in that there are brand loyalties between console manufacturers. Console manufacturers produce games to sell consoles so they can sell more games to those who own consoles. Films are not tied to producers who make the DVD players - you're confusing two very different situations. It was never going to be as clear as day. Because the Wii U is an incremental increase in power, like the XBOX over the PS2, it's not a night and day change like PS2 to PS3. Again, none of the examples you have listed are relevant. None of the examples you have listed would have sold consoles. Look at the games that are selling consoles. Look at the games bundled with other consoles. Look at the top selling games this generation on other consoles. Nintendo are great at appealing to hardcore of Nintendo fans - but even that hardcore is shrinking rapidly because of their choices. If Nintendo want to approach the mass market with a £300+ console, they need to do what is necessary to sell a £300+ console, which is to have the blockbuster games, the power under the hood and a marketing campaign to reflect this. Had the Wii U launched with the power to reflect the price tag and the games that people paying that price tag want to play, things would have been different. I agree, and have repeatedly said this. I didn't bring the used games aspect into it, but I think used games sales have bothered publishers for quite a while, hence the nonsensical and unfair online passes that Sony pushed and MS trying to totally cut out used games. I think RE is far more action orientated and hasn't really swayed back and forth. The 3DS and Wii U game was pretty gun heavy too, I felt I was clearing rooms of enemies more than I was solving puzzles, it certainly wasn't as 'shooty' as RE5 or RE6, but lets not kid ourselves, it wasn't survival horror either, especially toward the end of the game! Yes, I like the idea of some games not having combat, Silent Hill Shattered Memories was awesome and proper horror in a game. It didn't have combat and was a wonderful experience! I agree and disagree about Nintendo making the wrong games. Games like NSMBU are selling well, as is Mario Kart, Smash and Splatoon. But then other franchises like Animal Crossing and Mario Tennis have been damaged and should have been released as full games. Then there is the issue with the lack of Metroid and F-Zero, whilst I certainly don't think the later would sell consoles, I would still love and F-Zero game. Where Nintendo are really going wrong, is that there are two courses the company can take: 1) The Wii/DS way: make an affordable, simple and accessible console that attracts people who aren't traditional gamers. This way you can produce a console with less power and market it to a different audience. 2) The PS/MS way: make a powerful console, market it to the traditional gaming audience and the more male dominated shooter/action heavy audience. But this way means playing on the same level at Sony and MS. Nintendo are stuck in a horrible 'No Man's Land', a pricey console that is too expensive and complex for the people who bought the Wii and DS, but equally a console that isn't powerful enough, doesn't have the online infrastructure and doesn't have the third party support that is expected by those who buy the PS4 and XBO. Nintendo lacks all the games that are selling consoles marketed to the traditional gamer and the action orientated market that has been captured by Sony and MS. The Wii U has only one game in its library out of the top 20 selling games on the PS4 - ONE (Watchdogs)! If Nintendo wants to play on the same level as MS and Sony, it needs different games, it needs the big third party games, and if it doesn't have them, it needs to create games like them, its own killer FPS, its own killers GTA style game. F-Zero or Diddy Kong Racing or an Excitebike game aren't going to have any effect, Black Ops 3 is the best selling game on both the PS4 and XBO, its sold 13 million units worldwide on the PS4 already (33% attach rate) and its been out less than a year! Yet Nintendo doesn't have it, or the vast vast majority of killer titles that are shifting the PS4 and XBO.

All very strange news indeed. Obviously Nintendo will be hosting their very own NX unveiling, just as Sony and MS did with their respective consoles. What that does shock me though is that the NX unveiling didn't happen pre-E3 and the NX isn't at E3 with the games being shown off and the final console being playable on the show floor. What shocks me even more is that Nintendo are only showing Zelda and aren't showing any other Wii U software, we know there wouldn't have been much, but we know Paper Mario exists and I believed there may well have been other software, maybe a Mario sports title or an HD remake in there to pad thing out. What shocks me the most is the lack of 3DS. Whilst the Wii U is clearly on its last legs, the 3DS is still selling well and not pushing the system and its upcoming software seems like madness! So ultimately, Nintendo are going all in on the one game I think most of us are interesting in. This could steal the show if it is the game changer they clearly believe it is. However if this falls flat and the game isn't as special as they believe, the back lash will be immense! Overall, a very risky and bizarre strategy and one that sends out all the wrong messages of weakness when more than ever the company needs to show strength. It looks as though Nintendo are retreating further and further from the public eye and just going into their shell. My only hope is that when they emerge from their shell they do so with such a bang and such a machine that the whole industry is truly shaken up.

This is utterly broken logic. Nintendo will sell more consoles by focusing on releasing their less popular franchises on their console? I don't believe the Order 1886 sold anyone on the PS4. I believe that the PS4 sold itself due to being $100 cheaper, better marketed and more powerful to boot. The PS4 hasn't won the console war because of exclusive software, it won in the same way the PS1 won, $100 cheaper, better tech and a much better marketing campaign. The Wii U flopped not because of a lack of F-Zero, but because the console was comparatively too expensive and the marketing was a shambles in every sense to the point where barely anyone knew it existed and half of those that did failed to understand what it was. If you, or anyone else, believes that F-Zero is the reason the Wii U failed, then you are deluded! You clearly didn't read my post. There has been a huge convergence of genres over the last generation. This has lead to many genres being either wiped out completely or simple made to be more like 'COD' or contain more action and 'shooty bits' because they need to attract larger audiences to justify their huge costs. A small example of this is the survival horror genre. Resident Evil slowly became an action based game and got rid of atmosphere and horror for guns and body counts. Dead Space did the same, by the time we reached Dead Space 3 the game was a third person shooter with online modes and micro-transactions! The industry is converging more and more around blockbuster games that share more and more similar characteristics.

The laughable thing is, the people demanding things like new F-Zero games don't really have a clue how this industry - or even business works. Let me explain, when a company or a group of investors green light a project they make an investment in that project, they then look to make a return on their investment (ROI). We will start by looking at another entertainment industry, films. When a studio green lights a film they give it a budget, now say a film has a $200 million budget, the investors want a reasonable ROI for the capital they stumped up. When a film goes to box office, the receipts are split evenly between the box office and the studio (this is why I used the example of films as the math is easy). The film with a $200 million budget needs to make $400 million to break even. Now really, the investors or the studio will want to make at least a 50% ROI, and will ideally be looking for significantly more. So a film with a budget of $200 million needs a box office of at least $600 million to be even considered a mild success. The games industry used to be a very easy industry to make money in as budgets were nowhere near the level of those in Hollywood. The break even price for an average game on the PS1 was around 30,000 copies sold, which is nothing when there is an installed user base of 120 million. Making games for the PS1 was clearly very profitable and the output on that system was huge. However with HD systems and the vast increase in graphical quality and the graphical 'arms race' that has followed, game development costs have sky rocketed. So now you see developers and publishers divulging that games need sales of 5 million units to break even. So really, if a game needs 5 million units to break even, the publisher is probably looking for sales in the region of 7 or 8 million to see the ROI they need to keep investors and stock holders happy. We are seeing games selling a million plus units and they are regarded as flops! This is why it's not as simple as it was back in the PS1, SNES or NES days to just pop out an experimental title or release a niche title to fill a gap in the schedule and appeal to a different sector of the audience. F-Zero has suffered from declining sales and popularity in the mainstream, despite holding up as a title with both outstanding graphics and superb gameplay! But it's not just F-Zero that has been 'cut', across the industry there has been a loss of many different types of games due to the rise in development costs. And the games that remain are all becoming far more similar. Now, I'm not saying everything has become a 'COD' clone, but in chasing that ROI and the kind of money COD makes, we have seen a loss of genres like the survival horror genre - in fact both Resident Evil, Dead Space and Silent Hill have all adopted a more action orientated approach to try and get in on the action cash. We've seen some genres almost completely disappear - flight sims, tactical military shooters (look at Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon), RTS games, 3D platformers, puzzle games, extreme sports games etc. Whilst there is still diversity in the games being released, the similarities grow and grow between genres and games are trying to tick more and more boxes to appeal to wider audiences in order to justify growing development costs and see the level of ROI required to please investors. This problem affects Nintendo, it also affects Capcom, Konami, EA, Ubisoft and all big publishers. We have seen so many genres and niche titles fall by the way side - and sadly so many studios closing because of the rise of development costs and push for huge budgets and huge ROIs. I would love an F-Zero game, I'd also love a proper Rainbow Six game and a proper survival horror game and I love RTS games! But all of these things are becoming rarer, and it's not just Nintendo at fault, but a changing industry. The games industry is interesting because in less than 40 years the big titles have gone from being produced in a bedroom by a couple of friends and sent out on cassettes to being produced by teams of hundreds working from different giant offices all over the world. These vast changes have lead to an industry that was once used to a huge number of genres and creative and experimental titles, to an industry of that is more focused on huge budget games that tick boxes for mass appeal which inevitably means companies are less willing to develop games with perceived risk attached.

Don't be a dick. You've never run a business, or been in charge of a department that makes huge decisions that affect a business. If you had, you might have more appreciation for the fact that you can't always please everyone. If you had the choice of pouring millions into the development of a game that would sell 20 million copies or pouring millions into the development of a game that would sell 200,000 copies, you'd be a fool to opt for the later. Futuristic racing games aren't hot items any more. Wipeout, F-Zero and Extreme G used to be big names, they're not anymore. Nintendo is a business and they are obviously going to produce games that they believe will sell well. Why do Activision have three studios working on Call of Duty, yet they're not pumping out Guitar Hero anymore? Because one is good business and one is bad business. Nintendo don't exist to please a minority on forums like this, they exist to make a profit, which they currently do.

Miyamoto has been making games since 1979, that’s nearly four decades, and his career has had more hits and genre defining games than any other figure in the history of gaming. He has defined genres then gone on to redefine those same genres years later in a way that no other game designer has ever done. He hasn’t just had a few hits, but has been making household names and GOTY entries since almost the start of his career (Donkey Kong was produced in 1981). He is the genius behind Mario, Donkey Kong and Zelda and has worked on so many classic franchises it would be almost impossible to memorise them all! The man works in a creative medium, and produces games based on different creative briefs. He has made games like Metroid Prime, F-Zero GX and Ocarina of Time. He has made games like Mario, Donkey Kong and Yoshi’s Story. He has made games like Wave Race 64, 1080 Snowboarding and Super Mario Kart. He has also made games like Wii Fit, Nintendogs and Wii Music. Just because he does one thing doesn’t mean he can’t do another. Just because Martin Scorsese directed Goodfellas, does that mean he shouldn’t have made Hugo or Cape Fear? They’re very different films, arguably for different audiences, but all directed by one man. Yet now we have people saying because Miyamoto wanted to make Wii Music he can’t direct Zelda again? What nonsense! Then we come to the expectations and the ridiculous spite that comes from those expectations not being met. No one can consistently produce great creative output year on year, not every project is going to be perfect and not every project is going to please everyone. People have creative visions that don’t quite work out or aren’t realised as well as they hoped for. The man has had a glittering career for nearly four decades – do people honestly believe that there won’t be the odd low point? That at times he won’t have fully realised some of his visions or that projects won’t have always come off as well as he hoped for? But because some of his recent work hasn’t been as perfect as some of his older work it’s time to shut him off from all game development as if he knows nothing at all? The man is the producer on 5 of the top ten most critically acclaimed titles of all time – the last one of these released in 2010! There has been no producer, director or creative supervisor in video game history that has ever matched the greatness of Miyamoto. But now people are ready to claim he is washed up or that he needs to be put out to pasture? What a joke! Do people who work in creative industries not have dry periods, does everyone produce 100% all of the time or have ideas that always work out? The man is a genius, but he is also fallible – because he is human. The way people talk about him, I find it a little bit childish, distasteful and rather disgusting at times considering all that he has done for the industry.

Well if the games I've listed aren't 'revolutionary' enough or genre defining enough, please list some games that are more genre defining and revolutionary than the three listed below: Super Mario Galaxy 97.64% review average Super Mario Galaxy 2 97.35% review average Metroid Prime 96.33% review average Considering Mario Galaxy 2 has the third highest review average of any game ever and he produced that in 2010, what you are saying just falls to pieces in the face of scrutiny. It's like you are rewriting history to suit an agenda. And yes, we can all say that the Wii U hasn't been his greatest success to date, no one could argue that it has been a smash hit or his finest hour, to suggest that one man can literally be expected to produce games at the quality of Metroid Prime, Ocarina of Time and Galaxy without occasionally missing the mark is ludicrous - he is a man, not some kind of deity.

What? He developed Pikmin and produced F-Zero GX, Metroid Prime, Super Mario Galaxy, Galaxy 2 and New Super Mario Bros. Wii. He also happened to be a major driving force in the development of the Wii and Wii Sports and produced Wii Fit which sold something like 25 million units, pretty incredible since it came bundled with the balance board and the price was much higher than a regular game. He also produced several of the hand held Zelda titles. I have no problem with people pointing the finger when it's justified, but to come here and basically rip Miyamoto's legacy to pieces and claim he's done nothing for pushing two decades is utter bullshit.

GIT GUD! It's as simple as that! People have mocked the challenge in this game, but to get all 70 medals and complete a run through of arcade mode is pretty damn challenging! I've beaten arcade mode (just now in fact and on my first attempt), it's achievable, you just have to know the levels and have mastered the controls. Also, if it is your first play through on arcade, choose a route that you're more confident with. I went through to Fichina to avoid the two headed dragon boss! I have in many ways really enjoyed the game! There's loads of content - 12 main mission and a further 8 hidden ones. There's also multiple paths and multiple objectives in each mission. What's more, with five medals to collect on every main mission and a further 10 to collect over the hidden missions there's a lot to do if you want to see it all. The game is pretty easy if all you want to do is beat Andross and turn it off, but collecting everything is a tough challenge - one or two of the medals caused me to rage! The game looks great, sounds great and is probably the best Star Fox game in terms of content. But I just think the controls were unnecessary. A new control scheme should always make a game more intuitive and simple to get to grips with, not more complex. When Sin and Punishment came out on the N64 it was good, but when the sequel came out on the Wii it was improved by the new control scheme. Using the Wii remote as a pointer added to the game, it made it easier to aim and shooting anywhere quickly was intuitive and smooth. Star Fox Zero could have benefited from pointer controls like Sin and Punishment did. But two screens and a gyroscope? Well the problem with the gyroscope is if it always on in such a fast moving game you need to keep recalibrating, it simple isn't up to that and isn't a patch on the Wii remote pointer in that respect. The other huge problem as @dazzybee said, is the two screens often confuse you as the reticule is positioned differently on both, so sometimes you miss a shot because you're not sure where to look. On the whole it is a good game, but it could have been great had Nintendo stuck to a more suitable control scheme. I'm pleased I got the game and at times had a blast with it, but at other times it left me frustrated.

That would literally be the worst idea ever! All this shite I hear about 'soft launches', this thing needs to come out of the gate like it means business witha real push from day one just like the Wii did.

Pre-order placed!

I think Nintendo have decided the most important trade show in the industry is somehow irrelevant! How they came to this decision is anyone's guess.

You are hoping for the Wii U to blow you out of the water and Nintendo to showcase killer title after killer title at E3 for a console that is doomed and at best has stuttered along? Here's this year's E3 weather report: A largely barren sky is occasionally clouded with major disappointment, missed opportunity and a seemingly a total lack of direction! This will be followed by sadness, anger and resentment leading to lower than forecasted sales! The fact Nintendo aren't even showing the NX tells you what state they are in. Zelda has slipped to next year, really leaving the Wii U with nothing of major note left this year and we're only in bloody April! Oh and before people point to Paper Mario and the weird Fire Emblem game, they aren't going to set the masses on fire. Prepare for a dire E3 and most likely for Nintendo to be practically dormant until next year sometime when they finally show the NX and Zelda comes out of the oven!

Don't be a dick!

WOW! This was originally scheduled for last Christmas. I knew it was going to end up on the NX as well, but 2017 suggests that the NX won't be launching until next year. As for the Wii U - well that's basically cleared the release schedule for the rest of the year.

I turned them off and I am enjoying the game more this way! When you turn them off they only activate when you're firing or charging a shot. Each time you stop firing they re centre and recalibrate, when they're on constantly I kept having problems with calibration - one reason this game would have been better with the Wii remote and not the gyroscope.

I was just coming to post this. Anyone who says the controls work are objectively WRONG! They are screwed, I'm lining up a shot on screen and it just isn't hitting anything, then I look down and the cursor is in a different position. This isn't helpful, or fun, it's rubbish because when you're in an on rails section there is literally no need for you to have to look down, but they force you to. It's almost like the second screen is pointless at times, so to reinforce that you must use it, they make sure the on screen reticule can't actually line up a shot, hence you have to use the second screen. And the argument that now you can shoot things that have just slipped out of view is crap, because the benefit of being able to shoot an enemy you have just missed isn't worth the utter frustration of endless shots missing because the reticule on the pad doesn't match the one on the screen. Nintendo used to be about intuitive controls that simplified and streamlined the gaming experience, not controls that confused the player and made things more complex. Motion controls work really well and have enhanced some franchises - Metroid Prime 3 (and the trilogy disk), Battalion Wars, Pikmin and Sin and Punishment were all drastically improved by using the Wii remote. But that doesn't mean you have to force things that don't. Surely Nintendo must have play tested this and heard the confusion from players? So basically, it could have been done without the pad, as you can switch views! I'm not hating on the game, as I am enjoying it to a degree, there are some great moments. It is just spoiled by the controls, not added to. Especially the walker - why not just give us the standard dual analogue for the walker? Why make what could have been a fun and simple part into something harder and more complex than it should be? There's a great moment when the Walker breaks into a colony and goes underground and has to dodge laser field, but the whole twin sticks things fucks it up. Oh and also, what ever wank stain decided a barrel roll should be tied to two flicks of the stick and not the shoulder button on the other side needs firing!