Sorry, Fun-We, but I have to answer just this once. JediIgor: I haven't played "Shadows of the Empire" recently. I sold my Nintendo64 years ago, because game technology has moved on since then. I have now a PlayStation2, and to argue my side of this debate I'm going to use "James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing", a game where the player has complete control over James Bond for every single moment and yet still enjoys many different types of gameplay: running and shooting, sneaking, driving an armoured SUV, riding a motorbike, flying a helicopter, shooting from a moving tank and walking up and down walls with a rappelling chord. That's more than "Shadows of the Empire"... but, hang on, games like that end up crap, do they? Then why has "James Bond 007: Everything or Nothing" been recognised as possibly the most successful James Bond game to date? Why did it top the charts for almost two months? Why is the new James Bond game, "From Russia With Love" in exactly the same format? New technology means more can be fitted into games than ever before, and using a Nintendo64 game from whey-back-when to argue your point here, in 2005, on the eve of the PlayStation3 and Next Next Generation console war, falls flat, I'm sorry to say. Games like this are more diverse, more entertaining, require more skill to play and still allow complete control of the character. Thanks Fun-We. I'm sorry about making a mess: from now on, only discuss Fun-We's excellent game idea!