rgraves

My apologies, I did of course mean 52. 52 different strengths of attack.

Approximately 16.389% would have been better. Adding an extra 1/2 button would see that figure rise by 34.56% though. Do I need to add a smiley here? Really? OK, if you insist

Wow! I hope that sells like hot cakes!

So you're saying that because of one game, originally released on a completely different platform, the GBA needs 2 extra buttons? So if I design a game which uses 22 different strengths of attack and release it on the PS2, will the PS2 suddenly need extra buttons or will I just have released a game which was poorly designed for the console?

That would rock - especially one of those ones you can roll up (note: insert winkey here). Although, if it doesn't then come with a ScrLk button I hope it fails miserably

Of course we'd all probably prefer 4, but you have to remember that you posted this piece of drivel: You didn't say that you'd prefer 4 over 2 - you said that if it didn't have 4+ you hoped it would "fail miserably". You can't seriously stand by that can you?

With a touch screen (if it has one, which I doubt personally) you'd just sweep your finger over the screen to pan the camera left or right etc

Not enough for what though? For Advance Wars - one of the best games released on any system in the past few years? For Wario Ware? For Mario & Luigi? For Metroid Fusion? Just because a system doesn't have X number of buttons, doesn't mean it's going to be terrible. Surely the games count, not the number of fricking buttons that they use - that was my point.

Yes, because everybody knows that you can only make great games when making use of 10+ buttons.

So you wish that a fantastic game had never existed because you refuse to play it? Christ, get a grip.

Hold on...If you "can't" play FFCC, why did you post this is another recent thread: Now either you have played the game, or you were offering advice to somebody about something you had no experience of at all - and what would be the point in that? I mean if you haven't played it, how do you know how fun or not it is with 1, 2, 3 or 4 players? Oh and it's not that you "can't" play FFCC, it's that you "refuse" to play FFCC. The problem is not with Square-Enix....

Axelay. I just loved it.

I disagree - the game is glorious with 2, 3 or 4 players. Really, just playing it with 2 is still an absolute blast and it certainly shouldn't be passed over for fear of not mustering a 'full' team.

Eh? The mould was used to make the sword - it's not used to go on the finished article in any way.

Right now, Nintendo are planning on a US release. I'll be stunned if it's not shown at E3.

It is getting a western release. Expect to see a translated build on show at E3. Maybe

There isn't one - it's a GC exclusive.

Dunno if it helps, but somebody over at NTSC-UK posted this (playing the JPN version):

Nonsense, Seven Serpents was better!

I'm sure a lot of them weren't. Touché?

Absolutely, totally, 100% exclusive. Nintendo paid good money for the RE series on GC, and RE4 is going nowhere.

AvP on the Jag was pretty tense. It had a great motion tracker beep.

Yes, yes it did:

Isn't this one gonna have a quasi-first-person aiming mode built in though (see that first grab, and hence the widescreen only format)....should offer the best of both worlds Rejoice!

Wow - thanks for that. You've just made me realise that all those hours spent playing them were actually wasted. I wasn't having fun at all. It was terrible, and I was just in denial.