Did anybody notice the intent of these directors to appeal to a mass audience? What about giving a wink and a nod to the "hardcore gamers" that were there from the beginning? I'M A PERSON, TOO! As much as it's great to know that a bigger gaming audience(thanks a f***ing load, Nintendo Wii) brings the bar higher, I'd still like a company or two to focus on the guys who HAVE played When asked what kind of game they would make if money were no issue, money was their only goal. "Something that would make me a lot of money!" Also, they asked for how their perfect game would work, not their general strategy when they start to make a game. "I think there many "great" strategy games and I find that to me they share some aspects. One of the aspects I've always found interesting is that my favorite strategy games (like Civilization and Advance Wars) are games that I continue to play even when I step away from the screen. When I'm in the middle of an especially involved battle I find that I'm still thinking through possible moves and strategies in my imagination and simulating possible outcomes. " How would I have answered that question? Why has nobody figured out a better way of making good squad groups? Take basically every realtime game you've EVER played, for instance. The massive, slow, and powerful units take forever to get to where they need to be, and all your small, fast, support units get killed before you can do what you originally intended. I'm thinking about coordinating attacks when I pretend I'm a general of some powerful army. And I have limited resources! I can't just throw everything my country has to offer at the opposition. As much success as these punk developers have had, the state of strategy is bull.