Because people would rather watch Catching up with the Kardashians instead of of Ken Burns documentary. In other words, Jimmy Carter was spitting out truth about how to turn things around for the country when people just want to be told that things will be alright. It's no surprise Reagan came into the picture and did just that while dessimating the country financially and culturally.

In terms of best Presidents, FDR was definitely a badass that took control when the country was at one of its bleakest points and helped turn it into a world power. Granted, the war had a huge effect on that but his impact was absolutely important as well.

I'll also say Barack Obama was one of the best Presidents also. Endorsed gay marriage, signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act for fair pay regardless of gender, financial / Wall Street reforms, pushing for free community college for everyone, Health Care reform, made the FCC enforce net neutrality, provided millions of undocumented immigrants who grew up in the country an avenue to become legal residents, ended the embargo with Cuba, etc. All while being accused of being an unamerican pinko-Marxist Muslim extremist sympathizer who'll ruin this country.

Uh, yes they can, and they do it all the time for businesses. Have a plant that stores chemicals? Got pass inspection and buy the proper storage equipment. Have a barber shop that offers shaves? You have to use disposable straight razors depending on the locality. Own a grocery store? You may have to only carry paper bags instead of plastic. Own a toy company? Better make sure they don't have certain chemicals in them. And so on.

I don't know the legality of keeping same-sex topper for bakeries selling wedding cakes, but I would imagine that it's not an issue since it's not the toppers that are being sold but the cake itself, and the topper is merely a decoration. Saying "Sorry, we don't carry a groom-groom topper but we can work around that" isn't the same as "we refuse to serve you because we don't support your sexuality".

They already did with Old Republic. It didn't turn out too well.

I get what you're saying, OP. The account management for Sony's ecosystem is stupid to say the least. I wanted to create a childed PSN account for my girlfriend so we can play locally and she can also play the games I purchased on my account using hers. It was a pain in the ass and I don't even remember how I did it.

Your problem, OP, is that you're playing Battlefield for its campaign. That's like playing Tetris for the graphics or going to a steakhouse for its asparagus spears.

An American General was the villain in Modern Warfare 2. I don't think they're brainwashing people into being mindless drones for the government when a member of the American military orchestrated the Russian invasion that led to the destruction of Washington D.C.

@SambaLele: I disagree. Things are pretty black and white in this instance. Are there some people in GG that don't realize that, at it's heart, it's a misogynist movement that's motivated to harass women? Of course, but those people are in the minority from what I've seen. Even 4Chan got rid of those GG guys, and that tells you something. Ultimately, actions speak louder than words. You can tell me that GG is not motivated primarily due to a deluded notion of the encroachment of feminists and social justice warriors whose aim is, apparently, the "PC-ification" of gaming, but I don't see any proof otherwise. Once again, they say their goal is to bring ethics back to gaming journalism but why are they attacking so many women game developers? Oh, it's the minority you might say? Well, why aren't the supposed good guys in the movement doing anything about it? Why are all their actions directed towards everything but? Explain to me how doxxing Zoe Quinn will bring back ethics in games journalism. Explain to me how threats against Briana Wu will bring back ethics in games journalism. Explain to me how that Beat up Anita game, which the developer of that game insists GG is not a harassment movement lol, will bring back ethics in games journalism. It's not, because that's not what they care about.

I've spent enough months on multiple forums reading both sides and only one thing is clear: GamerGate stands for hate; they're the KKK of misogynists. So many women's lives have been uprooted and careers ruined because of these guys, so I find it dubious when people say it's not. Again, actions speak louder then words and they've made themselves heard over and over.

Anyway, I've said my peace on this subject, and I hope that anyone who thinks GG isn't a hate movement look at the facts objectively reconsider.

@JangoWuzHere: Plenty of people care, and if you're looking at things objectively you'd see that GamerGate is a vile, hate-filled group that's hellbent on attacking women in the gaming industry. Their narrative has proven to be a pack of lies, and their intention (ethics in journalism) is also bullshit when they, instead, are attacking developers and people who aren't journalists (Anita Sarkeesian, for example). I mean, this whole thing started Zoe Quinn, developer of Depression Quest, having an affair with a games journalist and getting a good review in return. However, there is no review, despite GamerGate's insistence, and they are attacking her instead of the journalist in questions...but that's kinda hard when reality doesn't match up GamerGate's twisted version of things since, again, there was no review of Zoe's game by the guy she was sleeping with. Let's also not forget about the recent even of a GamerGater wrecking his car because he was driving to Brianna Wu's house, a female developer and NOT a journalist.

So, no, the portrayal of GamerGate isn't due to the "media" but by their own fucking actions.

If really are care as much as you say you do, this is a good summary on things.

Meanwhile, the stated purpose, what GamerGate is really about – and what it isn’t – continues to be a moving target, and one that is continually belied by GamerGate’s own actions.

Is it about ethics in journalism? Then why are the individuals targeted directly by GamerGate – Literally Whos 1 – 3 – not journalists? Why was Rebecca Watson – who’s not even involved ingaming, never mind a journalist – singled out for attention by GamerGate? Similarly, why was Anil Dash – an entrepreneur and occasional blogger who has nothing to do with gaming –mobbed by GamerGate? Why is there no war against payola in the world of YouTube celebrities? For that matter, why is there not more talk about gaming publishers exerting influence on game reviewers – holding review code hostage to promises of favorable coverage? After all, the Society for Professional Journalism states that it is unethical to give a subject preferential treatment, especially in exchange for access. Is it ethical to punish gaming journalism sites (including the New Yorker and, er, me, apparently)6 by forcing the game developers to quit sending them review code, as proposed in Operation Krampus? How exactly would, say, encouraging Nintendo to punish Polygon for a low (7.5) review score for Bayonetta 2 be in any way compatible with ethical journalism rather than the exact opposite?

Haha, I think it is a sign of age but also an effect of gaming's popularity. I remember as a kid getting super hyped for months. Hell, I even carved "Perfect Dark" on my desk in my bedroom when that was coming out on the N64. As a kid, you have a lot of time but no money. Now, as an adult, I have more money than time which translates to having more games than I have time to play. It's hard to get excited anymore for future releases when gaming has proliferated to the point that no matter what system you play (console, handheld, PC, mobile, etc.) you'll have something great to play

Sub-30 frames per second for a game that looks like it came out last gen? Sounds like whomever ported this to PS4 needs to update their resumes. Even Last of Us: Remastered looks better. Woof.