Giant Bomb News

208 Comments

Worth Reading: 02/01/13

Things are just all over the place this week. Weird games, serious articles, YouTube confessionals, and plenty more.

This was a topic I planned to bring up on the next Bombcast, but I’ll toss it your way ahead of time.

I’m playing Fire Emblem: Awakening, right? It’s a good kind of stressful, and a satisfying step forward into my understanding of strategy games, based on my experience with XCOM. Everyone told me to play the game with permadeath switched on, despite the introduction of a casual mode, where soldiers just “faint” and come back after the battle is over. Fire Emblem had permadeath before permadeath was cool, or became a hardcore player’s badge of honor. Against my natural tendencies, I turned it on.

So far, I’ve only “lost” one of my soldiers. I should have lost a bunch more, but Fire Emblem doesn’t overwrite your save each turn, so you can turn off the machine, reload a save, and pretend nothing happened. I’ve done that a few times, and probably will do that a few more times before my time with the game is over. Thing is, am I playing it wrong? Is restarting a chapter undermining the whole point of embracing the concept of permadeath? To some extent, I’m forgiving myself for just coming to grips with the game’s mechanics, but at some point soon, I’m only doing it because I can’t grapple with failure.

It feels wrong, so it probably is. Soon, I’ll just have to give up on the concept of saving everyone, and if that means I’m left with a weak group of soldiers and can’t finish the game...so be it?

Hey, You Should Play This

Do you want to have a similar experience to last week's Unprofessional Friday, where Vinny and Ryan (tried to) pilot a real-life aircraft? How about with a fraction of the effort? Crashed Landing has you covered. Players are tasked with piloting a lander, and doing so with control over four different thrusters. It’s much, much harder than one would imagine, which is why there’s an “autopilot” switch (P) that engages all four at once, making navigation manageable. I’m wouldn’t go so far as to describe it as easy, since the later stages require some seriously squirrely manipulation to avoid destruction. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to try and pull it off with full control. Good luck?

Another one in the pile of...well, just play it. Did you like Barkley Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden? Okay, then.

And You Should Read This, Too

Video games are a convenient scapegoat for the violence in media debate because video games do a pretty terrific job at glorifying violence. Not all of us may come to these video games because of the violence, but it’s there, and what does our obsession with violence say about the medium, or at least its perception? Anyway, the always excellent Simon Parkin has filed this disturbingly enlightening report about the relationship between gun-focused video games, the money companies pay for the rights to include specific guns, and the reason gun manufacturers are more than happy to work with publishers to make this happen. That should disturb us. It disturbs me.

We have nearly closed the book on THQ as the company, but there are more stories to be told about what happened and why. MCV managed to get in touch with many of the companies who picked up the pieces from the now-defunct THQ, and why each piece appealed to them. There are a few choices quotes from former president Jason Rubin, who (rightly) attributes THQ’s demise to terrible decisions made prior to his arrival. There is only so much you can do to save a shambling corpse of a game publisher, and THQ was exactly that when Rubin showed up. (Audible sigh.)

If You Click It, It Will Play

Kickstarter Has Promise, And Hopefully Developers Don't Screw It Up

Yeah, Greenlight Still Has Issues, But Some Games Look Pretty Cool

This Kotaku Quote From Splinter Cell: Blacklight's Creative Director Bums Me Out

Our lead writer on Blacklist is Richard Dansky. When I called him, I said, 'Hey Richard, we're making Splinter Cell six, do you want to write it for us? And his first question was, 'Do I need to come up with a story that's gonna require Sam to take out 800 guys?' And I paused for a second and I said… 'This is sad, Richard, but I think so. We can talk about it, but I think at the end of the day… we want it to be more and more "ghost," [to have non-lethal options], but yeah, at the end of the day, it's just Sam Fisher and bad guys and maps, right?'

Patrick's Watching TED Talks As Part of a New Years Resolution, So Here You Go

Oh, And This Other Stuff

Patrick Klepek on Google+
208 Comments
Edited by YOU_DIED

@Antithesis said:

@Alex_Carrillo said:

@Antithesis said:

@Hailinel said:

@Antithesis said:

@Hailinel: The implicit design of something has little to do with how it is actually used. I get enjoyment from running a slick ar15 in 3 gun competition the same as a porche gt3 owner gets enjoyment from taking his car out on track days. An irresponsible or unstable person could use my 3 gun rig to hurt or kill people, and irresponsible person in a porche gt3 speeding on a highway could cause an accident and hurt or kill people.

A responsible driver won't kill anyone by driving their car unless there is an accident. A responsible gun owner could still injure or kill, based on the nature of their occupation.

While it might seem farfetched, it's not impossible for someone to be against the idea of funding a gun manufacturer with their own money (where profits go to the publisher/developer that licensed the rights to the models) while also buying and playing video games that prominently feature gun use.

I can understand not wanting your money to go to a weapons manufacturer if you aren't into the whole gun thing. People just need to realize that licenses for firearms are the same as licenses for anything else, some money has changed hands to have that thing appear in a game.

People do realize that and they're disgusted by it. That's kind of what this whole thing is about. A bit of reading comprehension would do you well.

If people realized that licensing for firearms is the same as anything else, why is this a story? licensed guns have been in games for a while, it's pretty obvious the gun manufacturers are paid for this, why the sudden outrage?

Disgusted by it why? You are using the weapons those companies designed to kill people in video games. The companies should feel bad and you shouldn't though? Is anyone even actually mad about this or is this another case of a journalist saying 'people are outraged' when really no one is? Also, something you should keep in mind: the overwhelming majority of guns in the United States and even globally are never used to kill anyone.

Posted by YOU_DIED

@YummyTreeSap said:

Dog of Dracula: GOTY, whatever year it was made.

I fucking laughed out loud after reading that in a serious voice

Posted by Hailinel

@nutmeg123: If you actually took the time to explain why it's an idiotic statement instead of being insultingly hyperbolic, your comment would have meant something.

Posted by Hailinel

@nutmeg123 said:

@Hailinel said:

@nutmeg123: If you actually took the time to explain why it's an idiotic statement instead of being insultingly hyperbolic, your comment would have meant something.

It's an incredibly idiotic statement because it's extremely liberal view on guns. Nothing disgusts me more than liberals complaining about guns. Also nothing is full of more baseless generalizations about something that these certain individuals clearly know nothing about.

Liberal is not a synonym for idiotic. Good night, you silly, angry little man.

Posted by feetoffthesky

That XNA link is the same as the zynga link.

BTW I look forward to these every week. It truly is stuff worth reading. That Clint Hocking talk is off the chain.

Posted by Oobir

@Ghost_Cat said:

The Atlantic article on Hundreds is fucking disgusting. Way to review a game by making it sound pretentious as hell, while being pretentious as hell.

Yes, that article is amazing. I had to do a double-take to see if it was written by Tim Rogers...until I realized that Timmy's pretentious game rambling is a class above this tripe from The Atlantic.

Posted by krabboss

You can play Fire Emblem both ways, really. Restarting the chapter because you lost someone is more like you saying "No, I screwed up! Let's do better next time!" and nothing to feel bad about. Imagine how many chapters would turn into cakewalks if you just sacrificed allies willy-nilly... no, restarting makes the game more challenging and fun.

Posted by Little_Socrates

The XNA hypertext doesn't link to the article, it links to another Brian Reynolds story. I'd like to read about MS and XNA, so I'd appreciate a repair?

That Cosmo speedrun of OoT is just awesome, isn't it? Like, who would every think to do that? And how? And WHY? It's mad stuff.

Posted by Chibithor

Rather than permadeath a character dying in Fire Emblem is a Game Over screen that doesn't force you to reload your save.

Posted by evanbower

@Hailinel said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Hailinel said:

@Dezztroy said:

What's so different about real guns appearing in games compared to, say, real cars?

By paying for the license to use real gun models in their games, developers are effectively funding weapons manufacturers.

By paying for the license to use real car models in their games, developers are effectively funding vehicle manufacturers.

@Antithesis said:

@Hailinel said:

@Dezztroy said:

What's so different about real guns appearing in games compared to, say, real cars?

By paying for the license to use real gun models in their games, developers are effectively funding weapons manufacturers.

By Paying for the license to use real car models in their games, developers are effectively funding car manufacturers.

Guns are items designed to hurt and kill people. Cars are not explicitly designed for that purpose. I figured that point was implicit in my comment, but since both of you apparently needed the clarification, there you are.

You're wasting your e-breath, Hailinel. I pitched that same argument a few months back and it just ended in me wanting off the Internet for awhile.

Posted by Ghostiet

XNA no longer supported? More like "XNA, No Thank You, Assholes", AM I RIGHT?

Edited by Amafi

@Stevemax said:

That Zelda:OoT speed run.

MY GOD! Impressive.

Since I was off work for the week of AGDQ this year I was able to watch most of it. Got very little sleep and over the course of it I think I donated $570. Some absolutely incredible runs this year. If you go here you'll find a thread where someone made an index of all the runs with timed links for them all to the twitch archives.

Especially check out this fantastic Battletoads & Double Dragon run by PJ and MechaRichter. Funniest part of the whole week next to the mario party on bonus stream.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, I only knew about it because someone left a link in the seaserpent chat right before it started. Can't remember who it was, but thank you.

Posted by Winternet

Probably someone has already pointed this out, but the link on XNA is the same one as the Zynga link.

Posted by Stevemax

@Amafi said:

@Stevemax said:

That Zelda:OoT speed run.

MY GOD! Impressive.

Since I was off work for the week of AGDQ this year I was able to watch most of it. Got very little sleep and over the course of it I think I donated $570. Some absolutely incredible runs this year. If you go here you'll find a thread where someone made an index of all the runs with timed links for them all to the twitch archives.

Especially check out this fantastic Battletoads & Double Dragon run by PJ and MechaRichter. Funniest part of the whole week next to the mario party on bonus stream.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, I only knew about it because someone left a link in the seaserpent chat right before it started. Can't remember who it was, but thank you.

Many thanks for these! I had no idea that AGDQ was even a thing.

Posted by mnzy

@Stevemax said:

@Amafi said:

@Stevemax said:

That Zelda:OoT speed run.

MY GOD! Impressive.

Since I was off work for the week of AGDQ this year I was able to watch most of it. Got very little sleep and over the course of it I think I donated $570. Some absolutely incredible runs this year. If you go here you'll find a thread where someone made an index of all the runs with timed links for them all to the twitch archives.

Especially check out this fantastic Battletoads & Double Dragon run by PJ and MechaRichter. Funniest part of the whole week next to the mario party on bonus stream.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, I only knew about it because someone left a link in the seaserpent chat right before it started. Can't remember who it was, but thank you.

Many thanks for these! I had no idea that AGDQ was even a thing.

I don't know why, but GB never links to events like that.

Posted by Amafi

@Stevemax said:

@Amafi said:

@Stevemax said:

That Zelda:OoT speed run.

MY GOD! Impressive.

Since I was off work for the week of AGDQ this year I was able to watch most of it. Got very little sleep and over the course of it I think I donated $570. Some absolutely incredible runs this year. If you go here you'll find a thread where someone made an index of all the runs with timed links for them all to the twitch archives.

Especially check out this fantastic Battletoads & Double Dragon run by PJ and MechaRichter. Funniest part of the whole week next to the mario party on bonus stream.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, I only knew about it because someone left a link in the seaserpent chat right before it started. Can't remember who it was, but thank you.

Many thanks for these! I had no idea that AGDQ was even a thing.

I didn't either :)

I used to be on SDA back in the day when it was strictly Quake runs but somewhere along the road I fell off. This was the third AGDQ, there's summer games done quick, there are annual events in europe, and for some reason I never heard about any of them. Really weird considering how deep I was into quake speedrunning back in '99-2000ish when I first got online.

Posted by Nictel
Posted by paulunga

That Cryamore game does sound interesting. Though including Secret of Mana in that list makes me very skeptical. I hope they're just including it to hook more people, because the gameplay in that game was complete trash. Unless what they wanna take from it are the different upgradable weapon/magic classes. That's fine.

Posted by Senno

Absolutely brilliant Eurogamer article. Yet one thing bothers me about it. Call of Duty is routinely suggested that it is sold to children. I hope that is not the case. The horror and the horrible act of bringing to death someone at the end of a gun is nothing compared to the carnage and delightful glee that can be seen on a childs face as they play that title. As a name brand, it has a responsiblity to ensure that children aren't playing their product. Something as simple as monitoring it's online multiplayer (which I've heard is full of screaming adolescents anyway) and banning them.

Posted by DeF

@Senno said:

Absolutely brilliant Eurogamer article. Yet one thing bothers me about it. Call of Duty is routinely suggested that it is sold to children. I hope that is not the case.

It sadly is. Why do you think people have been complaining about 10-year-olds on Xbox Live yelling profanities and racial slurs into their microphones since forever?

Edited by Nardak

I am getting so tired of the gun manufacturers and gun sellers trying to shift the blame on gun violence on video games.

Might I remind you that we had 2 world wars before video games were ever invented and there have been some pretty destructive ideas going around like "nazims,communism and so on" which have all had some pretty major negative tendenciens towards certain groups of people.

Also why is watching a western or a movie like for example "expandables" less violence inducing than playing a video game? We are in the end killing pixels on screen and not real people. On the other hand a real gun enables anyone to commit acts of violence.

It is true that a gun doesnt kill people but that people kill people. Sadly we cant trust some people with a gun so we do need stricter gun control laws. There is really no need for automatic weapons in people´s hands if they arent in law enforcement or in the military.

You do know that in other parts of the world people are able to have a democratic form of government even if we arent armed to the teeth.

Posted by DaBuddaDa

"[Hundreds] is a game for men with blonde stubble and square chins and herringbone trousers."

So, it's a game for Drew?

Posted by dropabombonit

Great article. The people running the computing course at my uni must be annoyed at MS for abandoning XNA because that is what computing students make their first game on

Edited by pvj

The interview of Matt with Chris about Wildman and GPG is depressing.

Posted by Senno

@DeF: Indeed. And while I don't play the games myself, I am well aware of how lax many parents are in that regard. The Eurogamer article is eye-opening on just how ingrained the culture of guns is in the American society - and while gaming is a huge part of that, there is nothing to suggest that there is any causal link between it and the sad events at Sandy Hook. I believe there was a study on this very recently based on some of the arcade games forcibly removed from near Sandy Hook which showed how different an arade "light gun" is compared to an actual handgun, and how there is no correlation in the feel and function of the real thing.

Posted by Parsnip

The XNA blah blah link is wrong.

Posted by KLEPEK_DefenseForce

Another amazing article Patrick. Thanks for everything you do here at GB. You are terrific.

Posted by TobbRobb

Man this gun debate is silly. Of course people are gonna react negatively to the realisation that they are effectively paying for the creation of guns.

Consider this, you live in a country where weapons are very scarce, and the few you see are worn by armed cops and military, which means that all the guns you encounter only carry the purpose of harming and incapacitating humans. Marksmanship competitions and hunting for sport are NOT common hobbies, so the view on guns for the majority of people is very negative. Add in the fact that no one ever thinks far enough to consider that buying something casual, like a game, could support something they are otherwise against. All of this makes for a bit of a shocking revelation!

In the end though. There is a market for licensed guns in games. And I don't expect fucking Colt to give their name out for free, and neither should anyone else. Gun or game-making are both businesses, this is just how stuff works. You can't really do much except: accepting it, boycotting games that do it or just pretend your personal money go into making specialized sportguns for the Olympics or something.

Posted by buft

@Nardak said:

I am getting so tired of the gun manufacturers and gun sellers trying to shift the blame on gun violence on video games.

Might I remind you that we had 2 world wars before video games were ever invented and there have been some pretty destructive ideas going around like "nazims,communism and so on" which have all had some pretty major negative tendenciens towards certain groups of people.

Also why is watching a western or a movie like for example "expandables" less violence inducing than playing a video game? We are in the end killing pixels on screen and not real people. On the other hand a real gun enables anyone to commit acts of violence.

It is true that a gun doesnt kill people but that people kill people. Sadly we cant trust some people with a gun so we do need stricter gun control laws. There is really no need for automatic weapons in people´s hands if they arent in law enforcement or in the military.

You do know that in other parts of the world people are able to have a democratic form of government even if we arent armed to the teeth.

Nardak 1 - Gun Manufacturers 0

Posted by KLEPEK_DefenseForce

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

meh

Meh? Patrick just gave us a whole weekend full of fun activities.

Posted by Brodehouse

@Senno said:

Absolutely brilliant Eurogamer article. Yet one thing bothers me about it. Call of Duty is routinely suggested that it is sold to children. I hope that is not the case. The horror and the horrible act of bringing to death someone at the end of a gun is nothing compared to the carnage and delightful glee that can be seen on a childs face as they play that title. As a name brand, it has a responsiblity to ensure that children aren't playing their product. Something as simple as monitoring it's online multiplayer (which I've heard is full of screaming adolescents anyway) and banning them.

*pounds head* No it does not!

Call of Duty has no more responsibility to make sure that children aren't playing it as Captain Crunch has a responsibility to make sure kids are eating healthy. This is a free society, one in which you unfortunately have personal responsibility. And if you have children, they are not the responsibility of people you don't even know. The television is not supposed to make decisions about what your kids should be watching, YOU ARE. And remember that an M rating doesn't mean it's illegal to watch or play, it's illegal to sell to a minor. Do you suggest Gamestop employees look at every adult buying an M rated game suspiciously, question them whether or not their kid or their little brother is going to play this copy?

It makes me crazy to see people who believe they're being progressive and free-thinking advocate the removal of civil liberties they're not directly using at the moment.

Posted by Jonny_Anonymous

that EVE Online battle is insane

Posted by Senno

@Brodehouse said:

@Senno said:

Absolutely brilliant Eurogamer article. Yet one thing bothers me about it. Call of Duty is routinely suggested that it is sold to children. I hope that is not the case. The horror and the horrible act of bringing to death someone at the end of a gun is nothing compared to the carnage and delightful glee that can be seen on a childs face as they play that title. As a name brand, it has a responsiblity to ensure that children aren't playing their product. Something as simple as monitoring it's online multiplayer (which I've heard is full of screaming adolescents anyway) and banning them.

*pounds head* No it does not!

Call of Duty has no more responsibility to make sure that children aren't playing it as Captain Crunch has a responsibility to make sure kids are eating healthy. This is a free society, one in which you unfortunately have personal responsibility. And if you have children, they are not the responsibility of people you don't even know. The television is not supposed to make decisions about what your kids should be watching, YOU ARE. And remember that an M rating doesn't mean it's illegal to watch or play, it's illegal to sell to a minor. Do you suggest Gamestop employees look at every adult buying an M rated game suspiciously, question them whether or not their kid or their little brother is going to play this copy?

It makes me crazy to see people who believe they're being progressive and free-thinking advocate the removal of civil liberties they're not directly using at the moment.

To absolve themselves of responsibility isn't fair to the children. At the very least, they should take complaints about that kind of activity very seriously. I'm not absolving the parents or even the childs responsibility in this - nor in the retailers. Note that I stated that I hoped it wasn't being sold to children. Children shouldn't be playing that game, let alone buying it. And if they are playing it, the developer should have in place a system that can weed them out. And the parents should be admonished for their ignorance.

Posted by alipkin

I think this (or something like it) is what Patrick meant to have for that last link.

(And great round-up, as always. I've got nine open tabs just from this post.)

Posted by bvilleneuve

Woah. That Atlantic article about Hundreds is really something. If you read it too fast you might not realize that it's actually a subtle, ironic takedown of the recent fetishization of "pure design."

Posted by paulunga

Oh god, they really took the worst part of Secret of Mana for Cryamore.

Even after all the subsequent Mana titles that released after this one, Secret of Mana still proved to have the most strategic battle system. It didn’t encourage button mashing. You had to zone in and well-place/time your attacks. If you screwed up, well, you have to recharge your strength to have another chance at a well-placed attack. Also, you can choose a weapon that would be your forte. In Cryamore, you won’t be able to choose the weapon anytime, only in the beginning of the game. So each gameplay variant will play differently based on your preference.

That game had awful battles. Getting stunlocked to death, unavoidable magic attacks, having to charge your attacks for ages to make them worth a damn, only single strikes - no combos whatsoever...

Posted by Lazyaza

Poor Chris Taylor, hope whatever happens to him and his team they all end up alright in the end. Would be awesome if they could keep making games but sadly I have doubts they will be able to =(

Posted by AssInAss

@alipkin said:

I think this (or something like it) is what Patrick meant to have for that last link.

(And great round-up, as always. I've got nine open tabs just from this post.)

I've only got five!

Posted by tater3698

i thought u've said on occasions that you dont like to reload once something pivotal has happened in a game and live with the consequences? is it just the fact that the characterization is good enough that you dont want to lose any of your units?

Posted by Mikular

Awesome read as always.

Protip: the last link on the page points to the Zynga story.

Posted by manateecannon

Resetting the game when you lose a character is the Fire Emblem way. Especially when you try the hardest difficulties. Only game where this is not the case is Shadow Dragon, which is worst game in the series released stateside.

Posted by fartGOD666

@Brodehouse said:

Call of Duty has no more responsibility to make sure that children aren't playing it as Captain Crunch has a responsibility to make sure kids are eating healthy. This is a free society, one in which you unfortunately have personal responsibility.

Hahaha you're going to hate the way you used to view things once you actually grow up

Posted by KLEPEK_DefenseForce

@BillyTheKid said:

Literally my favorite part of the week is this stuff right here. I love getting all these internets in my face.

I know, right? Soooo good!!

Posted by squiDc00kiE

Wow yeah that Splinter Cell quote is weird. I'm all sad now. Not sure why.

Edited by Korosuzo

@Fleshfeast said:

I'll watch this TED talk later out of curiosity, but I'm instantly skeptical when someone tells me something isn't important, but has it or plenty of it. Don't trust a pretty person to tell you looks don't matter, don't trust a rich person to tell you money doesn't matter. I find it hard to believe that you know it doesn't matter, when you've never had to deal with not having it.

I was curious too. It's short, about 8 minutes or so, and interesting if nothing else. Her perspective is actually quite insightful and something little girls who want to be a model should watch. She's just one of the few who won the genetic lottery and realizes that.

Posted by Brodehouse

@fartGOD666 said:

@Brodehouse said:

Call of Duty has no more responsibility to make sure that children aren't playing it as Captain Crunch has a responsibility to make sure kids are eating healthy. This is a free society, one in which you unfortunately have personal responsibility.

Hahaha you're going to hate the way you used to view things once you actually grow up

No, actually I have grown up, and my opinion on the matter has completely reversed because of it. Because taking responsibility for yourself is pretty much the definition of growing up, and expecting that it's the media corporations who need to safeguard your children is the opposite. And "they need to do more to protect our children" is the same finger-waggling, Helen Lovejoy-esque caterwauling and moralizing to remove the rights and responsibilities of adults that it was during the temperance movement.

Posted by bvilleneuve

That gun manufacturer article is terrific. Simon Parkin knocked it out of the freakin park. Gun manufacturers are scummy.

Posted by bunnymud

@Brodehouse said:

@Senno said:

Absolutely brilliant Eurogamer article. Yet one thing bothers me about it. Call of Duty is routinely suggested that it is sold to children. I hope that is not the case. The horror and the horrible act of bringing to death someone at the end of a gun is nothing compared to the carnage and delightful glee that can be seen on a childs face as they play that title. As a name brand, it has a responsiblity to ensure that children aren't playing their product. Something as simple as monitoring it's online multiplayer (which I've heard is full of screaming adolescents anyway) and banning them.

*pounds head* No it does not!

Call of Duty has no more responsibility to make sure that children aren't playing it as Captain Crunch has a responsibility to make sure kids are eating healthy. This is a free society, one in which you unfortunately have personal responsibility. And if you have children, they are not the responsibility of people you don't even know. The television is not supposed to make decisions about what your kids should be watching, YOU ARE. And remember that an M rating doesn't mean it's illegal to watch or play, it's illegal to sell to a minor. Do you suggest Gamestop employees look at every adult buying an M rated game suspiciously, question them whether or not their kid or their little brother is going to play this copy?

It makes me crazy to see people who believe they're being progressive and free-thinking advocate the removal of civil liberties they're not directly using at the moment.

It IS part of the parents job as well. A majority of the blame should fall upon the parents. And I hate when the government is quick to blame video games because they don't are an easy target that they will never understand nor care to.

Posted by goreyfantod

Chris Taylor of Gas Powered Games seems like a thoroughly decent (and very Canadian), kind of guy.

Even if I never get to play Wildman, I'm going to throw it some money on Kickstarter out of principle & appreciation for someone who's trying really hard to run a business in America without being a selfish, Steve Jobs-style douche.

Posted by SoloSkywalker

Car manufacturers pay or get paid to have their cars in games, why should gun manufacturers be any different?