Mojang vs Bethesda... BATTLE TO THE DEATH!! I mean... frag.

  • 75 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by swamplord666 (1763 posts) -

So Notch just posted this on his tumblr

Hey, Bethesda! Let’s settle this!

I am back, and I am excited.

Marriage has been wonderful so far, and nobody sabotaged my computer while I was gone.

The only negative thing going on at this moment is the Scrolls trademark lawsuit nonsense, and I think I came up with the perfect solution:

Remember that scene in Game of Thrones where Tyrion chose a trial by battle in the Eyrie? Well, let’s do that instead!

I challenge Bethesda to a game of Quake 3. Three of our best warriors against three of your best warriors. We select one level, your select the other, we randomize the order. 20 minute matches, highest total frag count per team across both levels wins.

If we win, you drop the lawsuit.

If you win, we will change the name of Scrolls to something you’re fine with.

Regardless of the outcome, we could still have a small text somewhere saying our game is not related to your game series in any way, if you wish.

I am serious, by the way.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I fully endorse this madness. What do you guys think?

#2 Posted by KarlPilkington (2778 posts) -

I also endorse this madness.

#3 Posted by Bollard (5844 posts) -

I also also endorse this madness.

#4 Posted by MaFoLu (1859 posts) -

All legal trouble should be handled this way.

That would also mean that every lawyer would have to undergo Quake 3 training in law school, just imagine how great that would be!

#5 Posted by N7 (3667 posts) -

I ENDORSE THE MADNESS. OOOOH YEEEEEEEEEAH!

#6 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5293 posts) -

Get Brad all up in this!

#7 Posted by BeepBeepBoop (95 posts) -

Just saw this on twitter. I think I love Notch.

#8 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4808 posts) -

I too, also, in addition to, along with you guys, support this madness.

#9 Posted by Arker101 (1472 posts) -

Hey, Bethesda, you should totally do this. It would make you look less of a jerk, and you could prove that you own Quake 3.

#10 Posted by eroticfishcake (7792 posts) -

I used to think thumb wars were the best method to resolve legal debates but this seems miles better.

#11 Posted by swamplord666 (1763 posts) -

they need to stream the matches too to complete the final step towards reinventing gladiator matches for nerds.

#12 Posted by RiotBananas (3600 posts) -

@Chabbs0 said:

I also endorse this madness.

@Chavtheworld said:

I also also endorse this madness.

I endorse the endorsement of this madness.

#13 Posted by Slaker117 (4843 posts) -

If you don't think this is great, you are officially a bad person.

#14 Posted by AlexW00d (6435 posts) -

God that would be awesome.

#15 Posted by swamplord666 (1763 posts) -

for good measure

#16 Posted by onarum (2296 posts) -

That's very interesting, unfortunately it will never happen, the suits at bethesda are probably trying to figure if they have any grounds to sue Notch for this post right this instant.

#17 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

Accept Bethesda isn't responsible for this, so your going after the wrong people...

#18 Posted by jorbear (2517 posts) -

If only Bethesda PR was as cool as the games they make...

#19 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (3116 posts) -

This is the best idea ever.  If this actually happens, someone needs to stream this.

#20 Posted by Irvandus (2881 posts) -

I will endorse this madness as well.

#21 Posted by sirdesmond (1262 posts) -

@MaFoLu said:

All legal trouble should be handled this way.

That would also mean that every lawyer would have to undergo Quake 3 training in law school, just imagine how great that would be!

Lawyers are all just professional Quake players. Now that is a world I would like to live in.

#22 Posted by buft (3320 posts) -

If this madness needs backing, i will sign my name where it is required

#23 Posted by Vexxan (4614 posts) -

The single best way to settle an argument...or a lawsuit.

#24 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

However awesome this would be, I am going to play devil's advocate here and say that Notch is only saying this to:

  • Gain a lot of publicity and goodwill among gamers in the world in a cheap way
  • Make Bethesda look like the bad guy here

In the end though, Notch, from what I understand of all of this, you brought this all on yourself by trying to trademark the word "Scrolls" forcing Bethesda to take action.

#25 Posted by TurboMan (7729 posts) -

1. Get some ads

2. Stream event online

3. all of Mojang's fans would watch, and game websites would give free publicity

4. Everybody wins

#26 Posted by FlamingHobo (4512 posts) -

Truly, this is the age of amazing lawsuit settlements, truly.

#27 Posted by probablytuna (3823 posts) -

I approve of this.

#28 Posted by Sitoxity (544 posts) -

@jozzy: You're probably 100% Correct, however, Bethesda could easily use this to their advantage.

They could easily set up a way to stream this, sponsor it, get charities involved, etc. Make a huge event out of the thing and they'd not only get publicity, have a pretty neat event but also have no hard feelings for either party.

Well, one could dream that two businesses could do that.

#29 Posted by Wildfire570 (719 posts) -
@swamplord666 said:

for good measure

This video is a necessity for any intense situation like this.
#30 Edited by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@Sitoxity said:

@jozzy: You're probably 100% Correct, however, Bethesda could easily use this to their advantage.

They could easily set up a way to stream this, sponsor it, get charities involved, etc. Make a huge event out of the thing and they'd not only get publicity, have a pretty neat event but also have no hard feelings for either party.

Well, one could dream that two businesses could do that.

Definately true, and I would love for them to accept it. Just want to be a bit more critical aboutthis whole thing because this is in essence a calculated move by Notch to portray himself as the ""good guy" and Bethesda as the ""bad guys", while in reality it's not as black and white. I think he would have a stronger argument if he didn't try to trademark the word "Scrolls" himself, which makes it hard to accuse Bethesda of being the evil trademark-trolls.

#31 Posted by Mikemcn (7018 posts) -

@jozzy said:

@Sitoxity said:

@jozzy: You're probably 100% Correct, however, Bethesda could easily use this to their advantage.

They could easily set up a way to stream this, sponsor it, get charities involved, etc. Make a huge event out of the thing and they'd not only get publicity, have a pretty neat event but also have no hard feelings for either party.

Well, one could dream that two businesses could do that.

Definately true, and I would love for them to accept it. Just want to be a bit more critical aboutthis whole thing because this is in essence a calculated move by Notch to portray himself as the ""good guy" and Bethesda as the ""bad guys", while in reality it's not as black and white. I think he would have a stronger argument if he didn't try to trademark the word "Scrolls" himself, which makes it hard to accuse Bethesda of being the evil trademark-trolls.

Its not Calculated, their lawsuit over the single word "scrolls" is completely idiotic even if bethesda is within its rights. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Notch is just responding with equal silliness.

#32 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@Mikemcn said:

@jozzy said:

@Sitoxity said:

@jozzy: You're probably 100% Correct, however, Bethesda could easily use this to their advantage.

They could easily set up a way to stream this, sponsor it, get charities involved, etc. Make a huge event out of the thing and they'd not only get publicity, have a pretty neat event but also have no hard feelings for either party.

Well, one could dream that two businesses could do that.

Definately true, and I would love for them to accept it. Just want to be a bit more critical aboutthis whole thing because this is in essence a calculated move by Notch to portray himself as the ""good guy" and Bethesda as the ""bad guys", while in reality it's not as black and white. I think he would have a stronger argument if he didn't try to trademark the word "Scrolls" himself, which makes it hard to accuse Bethesda of being the evil trademark-trolls.

Its not Calculated, their lawsuit over the single word "scrolls" is completely idiotic even if bethesda is within its rights. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Notch is just responding with equal silliness.

So you think its idiotic that they try to defend their trademark on "The Elder Scrolls", which they are required to do so or they might lose it. And you don't think it's idiotic that Notch tried to trademark the word "Scrolls"? Can you explain your reasoning to me?

#33 Posted by SlightConfuse (3963 posts) -

John carmack going to drag some fools

#34 Edited by Mikemcn (7018 posts) -

@jozzy said:

@Mikemcn said:

@jozzy said:

@Sitoxity said:

@jozzy: You're probably 100% Correct, however, Bethesda could easily use this to their advantage.

They could easily set up a way to stream this, sponsor it, get charities involved, etc. Make a huge event out of the thing and they'd not only get publicity, have a pretty neat event but also have no hard feelings for either party.

Well, one could dream that two businesses could do that.

Definately true, and I would love for them to accept it. Just want to be a bit more critical aboutthis whole thing because this is in essence a calculated move by Notch to portray himself as the ""good guy" and Bethesda as the ""bad guys", while in reality it's not as black and white. I think he would have a stronger argument if he didn't try to trademark the word "Scrolls" himself, which makes it hard to accuse Bethesda of being the evil trademark-trolls.

Its not Calculated, their lawsuit over the single word "scrolls" is completely idiotic even if bethesda is within its rights. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Notch is just responding with equal silliness.

So you think its idiotic that they try to defend their trademark on "The Elder Scrolls", which they are required to do so or they might lose it. And you don't think it's idiotic that Notch tried to trademark the word "Scrolls"? Can you explain your reasoning to me?

They trademarked two different things, Notch Trademarked "Scrolls" and Bethesda trademarked "The Elder Scrolls" These are two completely different trademarks. They cannot be expected to be mixed up. Bethesda has nothing to defend, it does not own the rights to the word "Scrolls" but some interpretations of the trademark law in Europe say that because they had the rights to "The Elder Scrolls" they automatically have the rights to the words "The" "Elder" and "Scrolls" both individually and in any combination. This is the byproduct of stupid bureaucrats getting in the way of common sense. Have you even read up on the conflict?

A while later, out of the blue, we got contacted by Bethesda’s lawyers. They wanted to know more about the “Scrolls” trademark we were applying for, and claimed it conflicted with their existing trademark “The Elder Scrolls”. I agree that the word “Scrolls” is part of that trademark, but as a gamer, I have never ever considered that series of (very good) role playing games to be about scrolls in any way, nor was that ever the focal point of neither their marketing nor the public image.
The implication that you could own the right to all individual words within a trademark is also a bit scary.
#35 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@Mikemcn said:

@jozzy said:

@Mikemcn said:

@jozzy said:

@Sitoxity said:

@jozzy: You're probably 100% Correct, however, Bethesda could easily use this to their advantage.

They could easily set up a way to stream this, sponsor it, get charities involved, etc. Make a huge event out of the thing and they'd not only get publicity, have a pretty neat event but also have no hard feelings for either party.

Well, one could dream that two businesses could do that.

Definately true, and I would love for them to accept it. Just want to be a bit more critical aboutthis whole thing because this is in essence a calculated move by Notch to portray himself as the ""good guy" and Bethesda as the ""bad guys", while in reality it's not as black and white. I think he would have a stronger argument if he didn't try to trademark the word "Scrolls" himself, which makes it hard to accuse Bethesda of being the evil trademark-trolls.

Its not Calculated, their lawsuit over the single word "scrolls" is completely idiotic even if bethesda is within its rights. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Notch is just responding with equal silliness.

So you think its idiotic that they try to defend their trademark on "The Elder Scrolls", which they are required to do so or they might lose it. And you don't think it's idiotic that Notch tried to trademark the word "Scrolls"? Can you explain your reasoning to me?

They trademarked two different things, Notch Trademarked "Scrolls" and Bethesda trademarked "The Elder Scrolls" These are two completely different trademarks. They cannot be expected to be mixed up. Bethesda has nothing to defend, it does not own the rights to the word "Scrolls" but some interpretations of the trademark law in Europe say that because they had the rights to "The Elder Scrolls" they automatically have the rights to the words "The" "Elder" and "Scrolls" both individually and in any combination. This is the byproduct of stupid bureaucrats getting in the way of common sense. Have you even read up on the conflict?

A while later, out of the blue, we got contacted by Bethesda’s lawyers. They wanted to know more about the “Scrolls” trademark we were applying for, and claimed it conflicted with their existing trademark “The Elder Scrolls”. I agree that the word “Scrolls” is part of that trademark, but as a gamer, I have never ever considered that series of (very good) role playing games to be about scrolls in any way, nor was that ever the focal point of neither their marketing nor the public image.
The implication that you could own the right to all individual words within a trademark is also a bit scary.

Yes I definately read upon this conflict, but there is a lot of conflicting information. The following information seemed very convincing to me,but honestly I am not sure it's true.

"Trademarks are all about strength. Strength is gained from uniqueness (that is the more generic the term the weaker any claim for trademark becomes – trademarks have actually been lost due to becoming generic terms), market share and finally chronology (who applied for, and used the TM first).
In “Big Mac” Mac is the strongest term, in “Mickey Mouse” it is clearly Mickey. Companies could get away with calling a burger “Big *Something*” – say the “Big Beefer”, Just like you could name a character “*Something* Mouse”. So long as it didn’t sound like Mac or Mickey – John Mouse would be fine, Michael Mouse” wouldn’t.
In “The Elder Scrolls” that defining term is clearly Scrolls.
Pre-notch, any mention of Scrolls + Game would automatically associate with Bethesda products, and I can only fine 1 game that is not an Elder Scrolls game with scroll/s in the title, a small word/puzzle game, and I seriously doubt they applied to gain a trademark for it.
So the second issue is market share, or brand/company association. Simply put courts have been known to grant usage to a company who came second to market (as in another company trademarked a name first) but became the clear market leader, due to the sheer weight of association with that company and their products. A fictional example (though not totally fictional in the case of gmail in the UK) is if someone had a business called “google” that pre-dated Google. One involved in computing and the internet somehow, but relativity unknown – a court may rule that this little unknown brand would suffer no harm from having to change name and grant rights to big G, Google – no matter which came first.
So in this case, Bethesda came first, have the stronger brand (notch has zero brand strength yet) and market share. They clearly should be the ones to own “scrolls” in the video game market.
Seriously, this is a trademark that is literally worth hundreds of millions (if not a billion plus) to Bethesda, and worth literally fuck-all to Notch/Mojave – they are not going to have a sense of humour about this kind of thing (when it can actually destroy their Elder Scrolls trademark.
Notch is an idiot if he doesn’t immediately realize he’s been a fool and withdraw and and all claim to the term “scrolls”, if he somehow gained the trademark in Sweden he should give it up to Bethesda, relinquish all claim to it.
Best he can do is maybe bargain usage of the term for his game (and any directly related products), but he can’t win.
If Notch does win in Sweden due to some odd non-EU conforming laws, or a stupid judge, then you can be almost sure that Bethesda’ll win in European court, it will cost both of them millions – millions that Bethesda will happily risk for their billion dollar TM. Will Notch? I doubt it."
#36 Posted by Matoya (416 posts) -

I always thought Notch was a manchild. Now it's confirmed!

#37 Edited by Mikemcn (7018 posts) -

@jozzy: They have a point about how certain words in a trademark have substantial weight, but I don't see where they're getting off on how giving up rights to the word Scrolls would hurt Bethesda, how many times have People referred to Oblivion as just "Scrolls", and like they said, Notch has zero brand Strength, if he released a card game called scrolls, theres very little chance it would put a dent in their sales. I'm sure eventually Notch will change the name and this thing will end, but its really lame to see such a big scene being made out of a such a stupid conflict. Its like an argument you'd hear on an elementary school playground ("You can't call your team the Buzzing Bees, my team is the Buzzing Bombers, your just copying!")

#38 Posted by UnrealDP (1221 posts) -

Thats cool i guess, but Bethesda will never go for this or atleast if i was Bethesda i wouldn't go for it.

#39 Edited by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@Mikemcn: As far as I understand it their trademark weakens when they let Notch trademark "Scrolls", which makes it easier for them to lose it in the future. I do agree that they probably should have gone for dialog with Notch first instead of the instant legal response,but Notch trying to trademark the word "Scrolls"could be seen as equally agressive. Like I said, we all want to support the industry darling little guy versus giant faceless corps, but in this case it really doesn't seem so black and white (as the Edge-stuff, for example).

I don't understand why Notch wants the name "Scrolls" so bad that he is willing to go through all this.

#40 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

Something tells me Bethesda will bitch out at first, then accept after the internet responds.

#41 Posted by Origina1Penguin (3504 posts) -

+ Rep to Mojang for this. I doubt Zenimax (note: NOT Bethesda) would agree to it though.

#42 Posted by Mikemcn (7018 posts) -

@jozzy said:

@Mikemcn: As far as I understand it their trademark weakens when they let Notch trademark "Scrolls", which makes it easier for them to lose it in the future. I do agree that they probably should have gone for dialog with Notch first instead of the instant legal response,but Notch trying to trademark the word "Scrolls"could be seen as equally agressive. Like I said, we all want to support the industry darling little guy versus giant faceless corps, but in this case it really doesn't seem so black and white (as the Edge-stuff, for example).

I don't understand why Notch wants the name "Scrolls" so bad that he is willing to go through all this.

He Won't let it go to court I don't think, he'll just change it, I doubt hes that attached, although i'm sure at this point he has enough money to fight it if he had to.

Or maybe this Quake thing will work out, it would amazing if it did!

#43 Posted by shadowwolf9 (162 posts) -

I think the creator of something like Minecraft should simply be honored. Being sued by a proven gaming mammoth while you're still a toddler in the sandbox.

#44 Posted by Gabriel (4081 posts) -

So Fucking stupid, Bethesda just gonna send Fata1ty.

#45 Posted by ajamafalous (12155 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos said:

Accept Bethesda isn't responsible for this, so your going after the wrong people...

Except*, you're*

But yes, this.

#46 Posted by jozzy (2035 posts) -

@Mikemcn said:

@jozzy said:

@Mikemcn: As far as I understand it their trademark weakens when they let Notch trademark "Scrolls", which makes it easier for them to lose it in the future. I do agree that they probably should have gone for dialog with Notch first instead of the instant legal response,but Notch trying to trademark the word "Scrolls"could be seen as equally agressive. Like I said, we all want to support the industry darling little guy versus giant faceless corps, but in this case it really doesn't seem so black and white (as the Edge-stuff, for example).

I don't understand why Notch wants the name "Scrolls" so bad that he is willing to go through all this.

He Won't let it go to court I don't think, he'll just change it, I doubt hes that attached, although i'm sure at this point he has enough money to fight it if he had to.

Or maybe this Quake thing will work out, it would amazing if it did!

Aparently something similar has happend before,but with arm wrestling!

http://zogotunga.com/southwest-airlines-settled-a-trademark-disput

Southwest was sued by Stevens Aviation over their use of the phrase "Just Plane Smart." The CEOs of both companies agreed to settle the dispute by a best out of three arm wrestling match. If they lost a round, they had to pay $5,000 to the charity of their choice, and if they won 2 out of 3, they were allowed to use the phrase. Southwest lost the match, but the CEO of Stevens Aviation allowed Southwest to continue using the phrase.

There is hope!

#47 Posted by Eaxis (958 posts) -

I hope this happens. Streamed live on a minecraft server.

#48 Posted by coakroach (2492 posts) -

All videogame legal disputes must now be solved through a videogame duel. 
LET IT BE KNOWN.

#49 Posted by Bollard (5844 posts) -
@jozzy said:

@Mikemcn said:

@jozzy said:

@Mikemcn said:

@jozzy said:

@Sitoxity said:

@jozzy: You're probably 100% Correct, however, Bethesda could easily use this to their advantage.

They could easily set up a way to stream this, sponsor it, get charities involved, etc. Make a huge event out of the thing and they'd not only get publicity, have a pretty neat event but also have no hard feelings for either party.

Well, one could dream that two businesses could do that.

Definately true, and I would love for them to accept it. Just want to be a bit more critical aboutthis whole thing because this is in essence a calculated move by Notch to portray himself as the ""good guy" and Bethesda as the ""bad guys", while in reality it's not as black and white. I think he would have a stronger argument if he didn't try to trademark the word "Scrolls" himself, which makes it hard to accuse Bethesda of being the evil trademark-trolls.

Its not Calculated, their lawsuit over the single word "scrolls" is completely idiotic even if bethesda is within its rights. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. Notch is just responding with equal silliness.

So you think its idiotic that they try to defend their trademark on "The Elder Scrolls", which they are required to do so or they might lose it. And you don't think it's idiotic that Notch tried to trademark the word "Scrolls"? Can you explain your reasoning to me?

They trademarked two different things, Notch Trademarked "Scrolls" and Bethesda trademarked "The Elder Scrolls" These are two completely different trademarks. They cannot be expected to be mixed up. Bethesda has nothing to defend, it does not own the rights to the word "Scrolls" but some interpretations of the trademark law in Europe say that because they had the rights to "The Elder Scrolls" they automatically have the rights to the words "The" "Elder" and "Scrolls" both individually and in any combination. This is the byproduct of stupid bureaucrats getting in the way of common sense. Have you even read up on the conflict?

A while later, out of the blue, we got contacted by Bethesda’s lawyers. They wanted to know more about the “Scrolls” trademark we were applying for, and claimed it conflicted with their existing trademark “The Elder Scrolls”. I agree that the word “Scrolls” is part of that trademark, but as a gamer, I have never ever considered that series of (very good) role playing games to be about scrolls in any way, nor was that ever the focal point of neither their marketing nor the public image.
The implication that you could own the right to all individual words within a trademark is also a bit scary.

Yes I definately read upon this conflict, but there is a lot of conflicting information. The following information seemed very convincing to me,but honestly I am not sure it's true.

"Trademarks are all about strength. Strength is gained from uniqueness (that is the more generic the term the weaker any claim for trademark becomes – trademarks have actually been lost due to becoming generic terms), market share and finally chronology (who applied for, and used the TM first).
In “Big Mac” Mac is the strongest term, in “Mickey Mouse” it is clearly Mickey. Companies could get away with calling a burger “Big *Something*” – say the “Big Beefer”, Just like you could name a character “*Something* Mouse”. So long as it didn’t sound like Mac or Mickey – John Mouse would be fine, Michael Mouse” wouldn’t.
In “The Elder Scrolls” that defining term is clearly Scrolls.
Pre-notch, any mention of Scrolls + Game would automatically associate with Bethesda products, and I can only fine 1 game that is not an Elder Scrolls game with scroll/s in the title, a small word/puzzle game, and I seriously doubt they applied to gain a trademark for it.
So the second issue is market share, or brand/company association. Simply put courts have been known to grant usage to a company who came second to market (as in another company trademarked a name first) but became the clear market leader, due to the sheer weight of association with that company and their products. A fictional example (though not totally fictional in the case of gmail in the UK) is if someone had a business called “google” that pre-dated Google. One involved in computing and the internet somehow, but relativity unknown – a court may rule that this little unknown brand would suffer no harm from having to change name and grant rights to big G, Google – no matter which came first.
So in this case, Bethesda came first, have the stronger brand (notch has zero brand strength yet) and market share. They clearly should be the ones to own “scrolls” in the video game market.
Seriously, this is a trademark that is literally worth hundreds of millions (if not a billion plus) to Bethesda, and worth literally fuck-all to Notch/Mojave – they are not going to have a sense of humour about this kind of thing (when it can actually destroy their Elder Scrolls trademark.
Notch is an idiot if he doesn’t immediately realize he’s been a fool and withdraw and and all claim to the term “scrolls”, if he somehow gained the trademark in Sweden he should give it up to Bethesda, relinquish all claim to it.
Best he can do is maybe bargain usage of the term for his game (and any directly related products), but he can’t win.
If Notch does win in Sweden due to some odd non-EU conforming laws, or a stupid judge, then you can be almost sure that Bethesda’ll win in European court, it will cost both of them millions – millions that Bethesda will happily risk for their billion dollar TM. Will Notch? I doubt it."
That vein of thinking is even more ridiculous than the whole thing currently is already! 
 
Take "Call of Duty." Now, considering that there are many other games which use the "Call of..." style of naming (ie Call of Juarez), then that would make this defining term "Duty". Does that mean if I go out and make a game called "Duty" which isn't even an FPS I will get my arse sued off by Activision? I severely doubt it.  
 
With similar thinking, shouldn't Notch also have been sued when he named Minecraft, as last time I checked Blizzard seemed to hold down all games ending in the phrase "-craft". How is that not trademark damaging do Warcraft and Starcraft? 
 
Lastly I can't even see how any consumer would be stupid enough to associate Scrolls and The Elder Scrolls automatically - that is some serious roundabout thinking. This whole thing seems like Bethesda's legal department being over-active.  
 
This isn't directed at you personally Jozzy, but I just wanted to reply to your quote.
#50 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.