Hot juicy mancakes! That makes a world of difference.
It feels so much better now. At least the Saber as B and Buster as R; still have to get used to dual-wielding with the chain rod. Hey, it might be cool to pretend like I'm a chain rod knight with a swirling buckler of power on the other arm. I'm thinking that'll last no longer than a level or a half, but sounds cool anyways.
I'll say this after playing some Zero 1/Zero 2 back to back: any of the sequels are better. Level design's not as boring, the music's more lively, and the presentation is polished. As for the weapon options, what I wanted to get at was that the Zero games probably would've been better suited without the buster, at the very least. And the charging along with it. They're comfortable throwbacks to the Classic-X style of gameplay, but I think Zero's better suited to melee weapons and technique development as a gameplay style. Meanwhile, X is better suited to shooting, charging stuff, and copying weapons as a gameplay style. While it is still satisfying to use the Buster as Zero, and it does add a good tactical complement to his melee combat, I'd rather the games X and Zero star in focus on designing around their distinct gameplay styles rather than mixing them together in either one. Using the saber as X in X3 is powerful but awkward compared to just sticking with the buster, and while I don't think X6 is the best example of combining buster and saber combat (for either X or Zero), it doesn't help the case that they should go together either.
Just some thoughts, though. The Buster fits well with the rest of Zero's arsenal and is a very practical weapon. Doing without it probably wouldn't have made a difference in how the games were designed, and would have only taken away rather than added.