Icemael

Beneath a Steel Sky and Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure are two of my favorites.

@fisk0: There's one in Liljeholmen, although it's tiny and every time I walk past it seems like half the store is filled with game-related toys etc. rather than actual games.

I don't see that these kinds of chains fill much of a function anymore, at least not here in Scandinavia. Even if you want physical games there are online retailers (both international ones like Amazon, and domestic ones like Spelbutiken here in Sweden) that offer prices that are at least as good, deliver games to your mailbox on release day, offer the same kind of used games service as GameStop (but with a much larger assortment of old games than any single physical store can offer) etc.

Niche stores that offer something unique would be cool to have around, but I'm not sure there's much of a market even for that. Years ago there was one in Stockholm called SuperMotaro that had imported Japanese games and even some arcade cabinets with games ranging from popular classics (e.g. Garou, Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike, Metal Slug 2) to more niche stuff like shmups by Eighting and Cave (e.g. Battle Garegga, Espgaluda II, Dodonpachi Daifukkatsu Black Label). They had some meetups and events, too. It was extremely cool but closed down pretty quickly.

Note that Tencent, who are pretty cozy with the Communist Party of China, own 5% of Activision-Blizzard (as well as 5% of Ubisoft, 40% of Epic, and varying amounts of shares in a number of other game companies).

Though neither is primarily a history of a specific war, War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage by Lawrence H. Keeley and Warfare and Agriculture in Classical Greece by Victor David Hanson are both very interesting and well-written books on the subject of warfare.

If you're reading up on mythology you should include the classics. Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, Virgil's Aeneid, Ovid's Metamorphoses and Statius' Thebaid are all excellent.

The question was whether you want your doctor to receive commission payments, not whether it happens. Commission payments for prescriptions are illegal, by the way, so it probably doesn't happen except in very rare cases. Doctors may certainly receive payments for other things (consulting, speaking, research etc. etc.) that may cause bias, but as soon as the compensation is directly tied to prescriptions it immediately becomes a criminal offense. Also, only a small fraction of physicians receive payments of any kind from drug companies, at least in Europe (though I understand it's a way bigger issue in the US).

A game critic's job is critical evaluation of games. An ad agency's job is uncritical promotion. The two are in no way compatible. Do you also want your doctor to receive commission payments from the pharmaceutical companies that produce the drugs he prescribes for you?

No minimap, no instinct mode, no opportunity hints, generally no saving/reloading, highest difficulty, Silent Assassin or bust. For me carefully exploring, observing, planning and then executing my plan is the main source of enjoyment in these games. I can't imagine enjoying them with X-ray vision and what's more or less a built-in step-by-step walkthrough of the missions.

The more fundamental question is whether art has a duty to conform to contemporary morality (or morality in general) and if art criticism based on "justice" and ressentiment has any real value beyond the pleasure of reveling in the vindictive bitterness of perceived victimhood.

I haven't played the Wii games but I did try the Wii U one, Maiden of Black Water, which uses the same RE4-style camera as the ones for the Wii. It's not very scary and just a boring game in general, and I say that as someone who loves the original three, II in particular (which is a big step up from the first game). While I haven't tried the remake I highly doubt that it's anywhere near as effective with the changed camera, and regardless of its quality I absolutely think the game deserves to be experienced in its PS2/Xbox version first.

Boxing and American football cause brain damage. The repeated drastic weight cutting done by athletes in sports divided by weight classes almost certainly isn't healthy. Women participating in sports like gymnastics and figure skating have an increased risk of developing an eating disorder. Competition in general involves a high risk of injury -- during the Olympic Games around 10% of the athletes sustain injuries of varying degrees. I personally know athletes who have sustained major injuries and a couple of ex-elite athletes who have needed hip replacements at a relatively young age due to osteoarthritis caused by sports.

The point I'm trying to make by bringing these things up is that athletic competitions at an elite level aren't and never have been about health above all else. They are about maximizing human performance.

This is one of the strongest women in the world:

Does she look healthy to you? Of course not! She's morbidly obese, a condition that, just like anabolic steroids, brings with it a host of health risks (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, depression, birth defects and stillbirth in case of pregnancy etc. etc. ad nauseam). Presumably she gained a fair amount of that weight while bulking to get big and strong, muscle being easier to build while you're on a large caloric surplus. In other words, letting herself loose and getting fat made gaining strength easier. So putting on fat both helped her build strength easier and harms her health -- sort of like steroids. Should she be banned from competition for putting her health at risk in this way?

As for the "unfair/unearned advantage" argument, I don't buy it. Is it fair that some people are born genetic freaks? Is it fair that some people are born into families that value athleticism and/or communities with good opportunities for athletic development (the presence of a good coach, a good competitive scene etc.)? One could go on listing endless other "unfair" or "unearned" advantages. Rules in sports are not really there to make things "fair" (which is an impossibility), they are there to make competition interesting. Take weight classes. Fabrício Werdum, Cain Velasquez and other heavyweights being much larger than Conor McGregor is no more "unfair" than McGregor being blessed with better genetics etc. than x number of other fighters out there, but watching McGregor get absolutely steamrolled by guys that make him look like a pygmy is not interesting for anyone. Same goes for sex differences. So without having weight classes and a separate division for women you miss out on a lot of interesting matches, therefore you make rules prohibiting ludicrous matchups like Velasquez vs. McGregor or Lesnar vs. Rousey etc.

I should point out that I don't recommend that anyone take dangerous performance enhancing drugs. However, if people want to do it I think it should be up to them, and I would certainly be interested in watching some of the freakshow competitions that would result from athletes having total freedom to pump themselves full of whatever they want. To keep things interesting and prohibit drugged athletes from pushing everyone else out of the game you could simply make separate divisions for clean and drugged competitors, just like we have for men and women, people of different weights etc.