equanimity
Equanimity
equanimity

I'm not aware of any fan consensus on the issue. But yes, she works so well as an inscrutable benefactor that it would almost seem a shame to use her as a primary villain after (only) two games.

You didn't think that they'd leave her out of Dragon Age: Inquisition, did you?

I wish people would stop repeating the idea that "restraining orders are ineffective." It's not true. Research suggests that do have an effect, particularly long-term no-contact orders. They're no panacea, and not perfect for every situation, but they can be a very helpful tool.

That's fair enough. I used to do similar tinkering with old games myself back when I had more time in my life.

You appear to be either missing or discounting the amount of time and effort it takes to get an old game stable and running on modern operating systems and hardware. That's effort worth paying for, assuming you're planning to run the game on a modern computer. Keep in mind that re-releases are generally very cheap,

A) I completely agree that the majority of Deadspin commentors were on the side of the cheerleaders, and in no way intended to imply otherwise. My comment was solely focused on those comments I have seen that defend the underpayment of cheerleaders (that are inapplicable to the underpayment of mascots), as this was

The most common defense I've seen of underpaying cheerleaders (based solely on what I've read in internet comments), is that these cheerleaders are sufficiently compensated in terms of status / social capital (ie, the enhanced ability to attract desirable men) that they do not need to be receive minimum wage /

And thus it came to pass that World War 3 was to be fought over chocolate, the weapons rich and terrifying, the losers to be tortured with by force-feeding until their inevitable death by diabetes.

Pick up the HD remaster when it launches? It's a PC game, so if the launch price of the standard version is too high, you'll be able to pick it up on sale within months.

My apologies - my post was a little ambiguous. I was trying to suggest that Mr. Kinsella was attempting a deliberate troll attempt that is only humorous/insightful for those who believe that there's no legitimate distinction between rape jokes at the expense of victims and rape jokes at the expense of

Keep fighting the good fight, Arden. It's difficult wading into the sea of vituperation that arises whenever someone talks about women in gaming (or, for that matter, Patricia publishes a post on anything at all - she has quite the following of trolls at this point, as most even remotely feminist bloggers do).

Apologies - I was definitely unclear.

John Kinsella is unable/unwilling to recognize the importance of the distinction between a joke at the expense of rape victims and a joke at the expense of rapists/ineffective responses to rape. Ergo, he considers it hypocritical to be outraged at the former but not the latter. He is thus attempting to make a joke /

Not only might it be unseemly, there's also the possibility of violating ethical rules on giving money to clients.

Wait - you became interested in this product due to word-of-mouth about its quality, but you decided against buying because it didn't have an advertising campaign?

You know, this is one of those pieces that could benefit by including actual sign-up numbers, so that people can put the ACA's website (and other) issues in perspective. (Hint: Signups were around 95% of projections as of March 27: http://acasignups.net/)

It's possible that you're joking, but it's pretty common for domestic abusers to smash and destroy property that their victims care about. Quite apart from the financial and emotional harm of having your stuff destroyed, in many cases it's an implicit threat to the victim - "if you don't do what I want, you're next."

You joke, but Australia's already at $16 for adults, with 6% unemployment and the highest median wealth per capita in the world. Australia hasn't had a recession in 20 years. While $50 might indeed be excessive, there's no reason to believe that a high minimum wage is inconsistent with national prosperity, and indeed,

Abrahams has now pled guilty. Is there a good reason why this article should lead a picture of one of his victims and not of Abrahams himself? ("She's better click-bait" is not a particularly good reason, in my opinion.)