I'm working on some weapon graphics for the "store" where you can buy them. At the moment, they're just outlines of the weapons with basic color fill in's. I'm going to add more detail and shade them in later Tell me what you think.
Weapon List: (From left to right)
Pistols:
-Glock 39
-.357 Magnum
I couldn't be less interested in small arms, so forgive me if I'm not as enthusiastic as some other people...
Anyway, they look fine so far (outlines are the easy part). Take care on the shading, and they should turn out very nice. Just make sure you don't leave all those black outlines.
The only other thing I'd say, is what's the point?
How is having heaps of guns going to enhance gameplay?
I know they'll all have some different characteristics (damage/accuracy/ammo/etc), but is that really going to affect how you play, or are you still just going to run up to people and shoot them with whatever gun you have?
I appreciate that you might use different tactics with a sniper rifle than with a shotgun, but why do you need 3 of each?
Because they're all going to be the same - or at least similar enough that it makes no difference which you use.
You can read just about any article on game design, and it'll talk about a good game being "a series of interesting choices" (a Sid Meier quote). Choosing whether to attack from a distance with a sniper rifle, or to attack close up with a shotgun - that is an interesting decision. Choosing between two very subtly different weapons is NOT an interesting decision, because ultimately it makes no difference which you choose.
All it does is dilute the core gameplay. The player should be concentrating on running around shooting stuff - not learning the specs of 20+ weapons, which is just geeky and definitely not fun.
And if they are significantly different, then they won't be balanced. There'll be weapons that are less effective than the others, and are therefore pointless - or worse, there'll be one or two that are too effective - and then that'll make all the other weapons pointless.
Sorry, but that is not making sense, in most game types restricting to one weapon per type will just make the game shitier. Would you play call of duty with only one weapon per type? Would you play an rpg with one weapon per type? You probably wouldn't. The only exception would perhaps be arcade games and real time strategy games, but not nessecary, you can still have more weapons, you can still have a pre level weapon chooser, you can still have an upgrade style game. And have you heard of balancing, or getting better weapons over time as you progress. Your post is mostly useless, and sid meier, you quoted him? that the most ridicoulus quote ever. Offcourse it's interesting to choose between subtly different stuff, it's like choosing between a blonde and a brunette. I makes no difference but it's an interesting decision non the less.
I agree with both you really. Too many guns may add variety, but take away from the main experience, while too few guns is just boring. I think the amount you plan to have is fine with me. Also is this for Zombie Swarm or Assassination?
more weapons or less weapon types of a kind. MORE WEAPONS.
item collecting is a key part to all games. It is up to the designers of the game to keep reinventing the wheel to keep it interesting.
I liked it when in fallout you had to be wearing the useless jacket, to pick up the dog as a fallower. To me that was interesting. I felt like the designers preyed on my assumesions about collecting clothing.
But Sketchy's point is that there is a limit to how much you can add before it becomes redundant. For example, if you have 5 different pistols and the only difference is in what they look like and that some fire slightly quicker than the others, then not only does that one pistol make the other four completely useless, they all end up being essentially the same thing. Don, your point about weapons in RPGs isn't really applicable because in those games, each weapon is usually either different enough from the others of its kind (say a fire sword versus an ice sword) or is part of the level-up process/a reward (getting the ultimate weapon for getting to a certain point in the game or being able to use stronger weapons at higher levels). They are both varied and have purpose.
More weapons or less weapons? Let's put that into different terms. Would you rather have 5 different weapons (a pistol, a rifle, a bazooka, a knife, and a grenade) or would you rather have 300 weapons to choose from (60 pistols, 60 rifles, 60 bazookas, 60 knives, 60 grenades). Why would you need so many different weapons? Can they all be so different from each other that they serve a purpose besides having more items that another game?
"It is up to the designers of the game to keep reinventing the wheel to keep it interesting."
And how is having 5 or 10 types of the same gun interesting?
Yes i agree there is a limit, but 10 weapons sumo made is certainly not above that limit. And there can be a difference between pistols even if you put 5 of them. 60 is too much obviusly. But in case you are making some kind of a historical or modern type game with weapons spanning the era, it is good to have atleast one of the type that is or were commonly used. For instance WW2: 1 tokarev, 1 colt, and 1 luger. Obviusly tokarev being the best if you would want to be historicly correct.
Would I play CoD with only one weapon per type?
Yes, I would.
CoD, MoH, etc are trying to give the impression of being historically accurate - that's the only reason they have one weapon of each type per country. It wouldn't hurt the gameplay in the slightest to just have one of each.
As far as I can tell, Sumo148 is not trying to create an historical shoot em up.
Here's a question for you - Would you refuse to play Half Life 2 because it only has one weapon per type? I'm guessing probably not, seeing as how it's widely regarded as one of the best games ever made. How about all the other classic FPSs, such as Quake, Doom, etc?
RPGs are not in any way comparable. Judging from his projects page, Sumo148 is making an online shooter, which is essentially an FPS but viewed from a top down perspective.
"It is up to the designers of the game to keep reinventing the wheel to keep it interesting."
That's such a bad attitude to have. Developers are having to fill their games will all kinds of pointless crap, just because people like you won't buy a game unless it has blurb on the box saying "50 different weapons; 20 playable characters; etc" - when they should be concentrating on making the game fun to play.
Why is the Sid Meier quote ridiculous? It supports my argument, it's from a respected authority on the subject, and it's used in absolutely the right context.
Here's an excerpt from another article, saying the same thing:
"It's easy to say that games should have interesting choices, but why is one choice more interesting than another? The answer lies in the type of decision you ask to the player to make. If the player has to choose between two weapons, and one weapon is only slightly superior to the other, even though the player may be faced with a life and death encounter, the decision itself does not reflect this. To make this decision interesting, each weapon must have a dramatically different impact on the player's chance of winning.
But if the decision itself is too easy, then it's not a decision at all. If it's obvious that the player should use the golden arrow to slay the dragon, there's no real choice. Why would the player risk using anything else? This decision, although it appears to be life and death, is meaningless. The player will invariably choose the golden arrow, unless he doesn't know about its powers, and in that case, it's an arbitrary choice, not a decision.
The key to making this decision interesting is for the player to know that the golden arrow is the right choice, but also to know that if he uses the golden arrow now, he won't be able to use it later when he has to fight the evil mage. To make this decision truly dramatic, the player must be put in a position where both paths have consequences. If the player doesn't use the arrow now, his faithful companion, who is not immune to dragon fire, may die during the battle. However, if the player uses the arrow, it will be much harder to destroy the evil mage later on. Suddenly the decision has become more complex, with consequences on both sides of the equation.
Not all decisions in a game need to be as complex as the one with the golden arrow. Simple decisions are fine, just so long as they're not hollow, obvious, or uninformed. As a rule, you want to remove all nondecisions from you game, and a player should never be forced to think about anything unless it has some impact, either direct or indirect, on whether they win or lose.
Hollow decision: no real consequences
Obvious decision: no real decision
Uninformed decision: an arbitrary choice
Informed decision: where the player has ample information
Dramatic decision: taps into a player's emotional state
Weighted decision: a balanced decision with consequences on both sides
Immediate decision: has an immediate impact
Long-term decision: whose impact will be felt down the road
In the example of the golden arrow, the decision is a combination of the previous decision types. It's an informed decision because the player knows a lot about situation he is in, it's a dramatic decision because the player has an emotional attachment to his faithful companion, it's a weighted decision because there are consequences balanced on both sides, it's an immediate decision because it impacts the battle which is taking place with the Dragon, and it's a long-term decision because it impacts the future battle with the evil mage. All these combine to make the decision of whether or not to use the golden arrow a critical choice in the game, and this makes the game interesting."
Maybe not hang onto every word of that stuff, hey Sketchy? Not least because I haven't killed a dragon with a golden arrow for a while now.
Would I play CoD with only one weapon per type? Yes, I would.
I wouldn't play CoD if you payed me, but
CoD, MoH, etc are trying to give the impression of being historically accurate - that's the only reason they have one weapon of each type per country.
And why would this be blissfully outside of the concerns of good game design? The point is to give us a rich and complex game world, with subtlety and nuance and all that, to be convincing even if only in regards to its own arbitrary rules. The kind of rich and complex game worlds I'm interested in give me the opportunity to bring knives to gunfights, not just a series of prearranged, controlled encounters.
Would you refuse to play Half Life 2 because it only has one weapon per type? I'm guessing probably not, seeing as how it's widely regarded as one of the best games ever made.
I still prefer Half Life 1 by a long way, though I never really feel the need to whip out my snarks while playing. Nonetheless, it's another detail that makes me think boy, there's a real cosmology here, in fact that's what has always been the best thing about Half Life, that cause and effect don't necessarily feel mechanical, that we're not just solving a sequence of shooting puzzles but that there's all kinds of interesting shit afoot.
Oh, and as Sumo says in his original post, you're going to buy items in a store. I tend to find handing over money can be a pretty loaded decision! What if I can't afford a golden arrow or to get my faithful companion vaccinated?
^ Half Life 2 is Pretty horrible . . .part 1 and the gearbox spinoffs (well . . . opposing force - haven't played blue shift) were fun.
Uhm. I dunno how to make this sound more relevant so I'm just going to go ahead.
In Megaman and Megaman X games the weapons are always pretty diverse in what they can do and what they can be used for. Megaman X 3 is probably the most popular Snes Megaman X title and I hate it. I think it is only popular because you can play as zero.
There are too many duplicate weapons in Megaman X 3. Most of them have the same movements or just down right useless movements. They are rarely useful outside of boss battles. Who wants 4 megaman weapons that all shoot a different type of missile straight forward?
Well i found half life 2 to have a terrible selection of weapons actually. Halflife 1 was so much better, both with weapons and gameplay. Offcourse i wouldn't say that the restriction of weapons is a nessecary a bad thing. But in my opinion games with more weapons are ussually more fun(stalker(rpg), cod, battlefield, swat, soldat). A subtle difference gives the player more stuff to enjoy. Take for instance mount&blade, an rpg, which has a great selection of different weapons per type. And in my opinion it improves the gameplay. As opposed to have sword, axe, spear. And a lousy example of bethesda which thinks rpgs should have really retarted weapons system. Not to mention enemy lvling up as you do, thats probably the most idiotic thing ever made by that company. But im off topic... Anyway, quake and doom are great games, with a great weapon system, but shooters progressed over the years. If someone wants to have a variety of weapons to choose from i think that will only add to the game appeal, and if done properly will only improve the game. Not to mention if you are doing real life weapons, most weapon enthusiast will surely be attracted to the game if they are done properly and accurately, and if there is a nice selection.
As long as there's a payoff in some measure to using a different weapon, then it should be allowed. This is what I think the crux of the argument is here. But what payoff are you seeking? That's the larger issue at hand.
Here are some examples of different types of projectile weapons (archetypes, perhaps?) you'll find in pretty much any gun-centric game out there.
-basic handgun: low rate of fire, low- to mid- accuracy (perhaps mitigated by player experience), and damage
-auto rifle: high rate of fire, low accuracy, low- to mid-damage
-shotgun: high damage, accuracy that decreases exponentially with range (providing an effectively short range), mid-level rate of fire or cool-down time
-grenade: timed detonation; arc trajectory; explosion at a distance that causes considerable damage
-missile launcher: debilitating explosive; very low rate of fire
-The list goes on: lasers, sniper rifles, etc.
The question is: how can you tweak the variables of range, accuracy, damage, etc. and still have all options be viable, meaningful gameplay choices?
Then there's the "features" angle, as opposed to "gameplay". For example, in Left 4 Dead 2, there are a wide variety of different melee weapons. But do these make much difference in effect? Mechanically, no (or no noticeable effect). But it's super cool to hear that "bong" of a frying pan on a zombie's skull, or see the blood splatters scattered across the screen when you use the katana. The key difference here is that they suck the player into a more entertaining game experience.
To put a name on the ends of the spectrum on this discussion: I think it was Don Luciano who stated that gun aficionados would LOVE to have so many choices...Not because of a noticeable effect on the gameplay, but because it adds to the features the game provides. Meanwhile, Sketchy is seeking out a tangible benefit to gameplay, as opposed to "bells & whistles" and a number of what he refers to as "meaningless choices." These are meaningless in terms of gameplay, but meanwhile would be essential with someone looking for added features.
To weigh in personally on this spectrum, I say I side with Sketchy on this one. Give me a fair and distinct example of even three weapon archetypes from the list above, and I'll be more than satisfied. Hell, I grew up with the 8-bit NES, where a "charged shot" was considered a genre-defining innovation.
Originally Posted by Sumo148 its just variety to use different weapons. Different accuracy, rate of fire, power, etc.
More is better whenever they all actually do something very different from each other. I don't want a ton of weapons with slightly different statistics. That's just stupid. (Call of Duty)
I'd rather have a variety of weapons that all act very differently from one another. Case in point, Unreal Tournament.
*ehem* Now then, in the above picture we have:
- Gun that calls down an air strike.
- Gun that shoots from a very long range.
- Gun that shoots a power core with secondary fire, that explodes when hit with the straight forward primary fire.
- Gun that fires a melee style shield burst.
- Gun that shoots rockets.
- Gun that shoots a nuke.
- Gun that shoots very fast.
- Gun that shoots spider mines.
- Gun that shoots a constant laser.
- Gun that shoots bursts of lightning.
- Gun that I don't recognize - sorry.
- Gun that shoots sticky grenades.
- Gun that shoots flaks.
- Gun that shoots multiple blobs with primary fire or a huge blob depending on how long you hold down secondary. Sticks to stuff and pops.
- Gun that locks onto vehicles as long as you're still pointed on it.
- Gun that no one wants because it just shoots normal shots like Call of Duty and if we wanted that, we'd play Call of Duty. Ew.
Now then... we have:
- A bunch of guns that do the exact same thing with slightly modified statistics. Fun.
As I said, more guns is good... as long as people actually care to see each gun. Me, when I see a whole bunch of guns with short names and a number that all do remotely the same thing, I don't see a bunch of guns, I see the same gun with slightly different stat changes.
I like all that information about choice. it's good stuff. but I just buy the strategy guides anyways. So I don't have to deal with making the wrong decidsions in games. Basied on the number of strategy guides I see on the shelves. Something tells me I'm not the only one buying them.
A game is nothing like a good book. They reward the user in vary different ways. I'd be mad if someone told me about the end of a book. But I'll watch Youtube of end game levels all day.
Silverfire:
Wow, i can't believe you only see bunch of guns with short names that all do remotely the same thing. Those weapons are quite different, but i guess it's where our difference in opinions meets. I see you showed cod6 weapons which are quite badly done anyway, I still can't believe that they made a short version of mp5 and made Steyr AUG a machinegun, when it's actually more of an assault sniper rifle, not to mention in every cod most american guns are much better than they actually are in real life. But I would choose those weapons anytime instead of unreal weapons. Not that i dislike unreal, but after the first unreal, the other ones were just to show off their engine, which is actually great, i tried the free version, very good stuff, both editor and coding wise.
I guess I am one of the few that can not stand any of the COD's.
I would much rather play UT or Serious Sam HD (first or second encounter) which are so much more FUN imo.
I agree with Sketchy, so many people get caught up with bells and whistles they miss the core point of playing a video game, which is to have fun. I do not want to remember the specs of a 3 different shotguns, or 3 different assault rifles, I want to have fun and not play top trumps.
Sketchy is seeking out a tangible benefit to gameplay, as opposed to "bells & whistles" and a number of what he refers to as "meaningless choices." These are meaningless in terms of gameplay, but meanwhile would be essential with someone looking for added features.
Apologies for my continued tangential interest in this debate. It's just I'm detecting more hostility than redundancy alone warrants - more, in fact, a paranoia that mapping this redundancy to a set of arbitrary rules (such as real-life weapon stats) blasphemes that holy of holies, the Balanced Gameplay Experience.
But an overdesigned game can be easily as dull as an underdesigned one! I loved (the first four levels of) the original Far Cry, but was disappointed when I replayed it that the vast, free-roaming maps were 100% illusion and really concealed maybe 2, 3 seperate paths - paths that covered different terrain, required different equipment and different strategies, but that had been tweaked to be more or less identical in difficulty, dramatic interest, etc. Where was the unpatrolled beeline through the jungle I might have taken? Where was the mercenary camp I had no need to even approach?
And a lousy example of bethesda which thinks rpgs should have really retarted weapons system. Not to mention enemy lvling up as you do, thats probably the most idiotic thing ever made by that company. But im off topic...
Yeah, I guess the real problem here is that a system that might have worked in one genre is used in one where it doesn't, but it's still a good example of trying to balance a game and breaking all the rules in the process (the internal rules, the ones that govern how a fantasy world is a world and not just a film-set where the player enacts the sensible outcome of his choosing).
I've always thought that more guns was better, but this thread made me reconsider.
Half-Life 2 is a really great game, with only one pistol, one revolver, one smg etc. and it doesn't hurt the gameplay at all.
In the game I am making there is only one weapon per type as well, with the exception of 2 shotguns, (One auto, one semi-auto) and 2 different types of grenade launcher (Confidential, but I promise they'll not be the same at all)
Then again, my by far favorite combat game, CSS, has multiple guns per category, and I think it's very well balanced.
Same with TF2, even if I never play it anymore.
All in all I don't think the amount of guns is the first thing you should judge when playing a game, they don't affect the gameplay too much.
I would i.e have played CSS with Deagle, MP5, AK47, AWP and M3, which would be one weapon per type.
Originally Posted by Sumo148 its just variety to use different weapons. Different accuracy, rate of fire, power, etc.
UT POST
I'm really late, but UT has probably the best weapon selection in any game ever.
There is literally a weapon for EVERY situation and every angle.
You can master one weapon and be good at the game, but if you can master all of them plus dodging, wall dodging, etc. you can become godly.
Oh by the way brandon the Assault rifle was shitty in the PC version only. In unreal champion ship I could pop someone with a grenade, hit them again in mid-air, then make them land on a third one about 100% of the time which almost always resulted in a kill. You had to be fucking good to do that.
All the game design you need to know is in this video
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
Originally Posted by s-m-r Silverfire: the gun you couldn't remember was the Link Gun, I believe. Excellent way to incorporate a new game style into the FPS genre.
Ah yeah, that was the ORIGINAL model to the link gun. I covered the link gun in the model I was most used to, the one in UT2K4. Thanks.
Originally Posted by ..::hagar::.. I guess I am one of the few that can not stand any of the COD's.
I would much rather play UT or Serious Sam HD (first or second encounter) which are so much more FUN imo.
I agree with Sketchy, so many people get caught up with bells and whistles they miss the core point of playing a video game, which is to have fun. I do not want to remember the specs of a 3 different shotguns, or 3 different assault rifles, I want to have fun and not play top trumps.
Read my post. You may be one of the few, but you're one of the awesome too.
so would you say borderlands is a bad game then? the guns are all randomly generated. i believe it was stated that there was over a half million possible generated guns, visually anyways, then perhaps infinitely generated stats on those guns. and for the most part theyre all badass, and you can always get a better gun.
there is no such thing as too many weapons sketchy. the only time its pointless to have a ton of guns, is if they are all readily available. if you have to work for them, or pay for them inside the game, then the more the better. take counter strike. a good lot of weapons to choose from depending on which side youre on, but you cant just take the best weapon from the start, you have to kill people and earn money over several matches to save up for that weapon. same with killing floor, its not that easy to get the best or your favorite weapon, when youre constantly needing to buy ammo and armor and grenades. it makes getting a gun just a little better worth while. every bit of stats on a weapon count, regardless of how miniscule.
if you find variety of options overwhelming or pointless then dont f**king play the game. it doesnt make it wrong or unnacceptable.
side note: the melee weapons in l4d are not all the same. differences being swing speed, reach, damage radius, etc. these are all slight differences, but make the difference when fighting off the horde. the katana will slice through several infected killing them all, even more so if you are turning as you swing. a frying pan hardly does that, it will push back other zombies around you though when you swing it. i play too much l4d
Originally Posted by Robot Cecil so would you say borderlands is a bad game then? the guns are all randomly generated. i believe it was stated that there was over a half million possible generated guns, visually anyways, then perhaps infinitely generated stats on those guns. and for the most part theyre all badass, and you can always get a better gun.
there is no such thing as too many weapons sketchy. the only time its pointless to have a ton of guns, is if they are all readily available. if you have to work for them, or pay for them inside the game, then the more the better. take counter strike. a good lot of weapons to choose from depending on which side youre on, but you cant just take the best weapon from the start, you have to kill people and earn money over several matches to save up for that weapon. same with killing floor, its not that easy to get the best or your favorite weapon, when youre constantly needing to buy ammo and armor and grenades. it makes getting a gun just a little better worth while. every bit of stats on a weapon count, regardless of how miniscule.
if you find variety of options overwhelming or pointless then dont f**king play the game. it doesnt make it wrong or unnacceptable.
side note: the melee weapons in l4d are not all the same. differences being swing speed, reach, damage radius, etc. these are all slight differences, but make the difference when fighting off the horde. the katana will slice through several infected killing them all, even more so if you are turning as you swing. a frying pan hardly does that, it will push back other zombies around you though when you swing it. i play too much l4d
Many weapons in borderlands have hidden alignments (such as the ultra rare weapons that are 3 elements), they are affected by class skills/traits/perks, some work better on certain enemies.
If you're good at borderlands you use more than just one weapon AND you know when to use it.
PS l4d sucks. The same thing can be applied to borderlands as well (each gun has its own accuracy, rate of fire, some have scopes, some shoot more bullets simultaneously, some have bigger clips iirc, etc etc.)
The guns in borderlands are infinitely more cool than the weapons in L4D
youre arguing except youre helping my point. O_o??
and as for l4d sucking? where have you been? l4d/l4d2 is one of the best cooperative shooters currently out. the reason it doesnt have a TON of weapons is because it isnt about the weapons. its about teamwork, and killing zombies. and theres still plenty of guns. 22 guns + 4 international guns = 26 guns, 11 melee weapons + 1 international melee weapon = 12 melee, 3 throwable grenade type weapons, 2 special ammo types, 4 health type items. ALL of which have their own purposes, uniqueness, etc. Also you can play AS the infected in vs.
Wow - not checked in on this thread for a while, it made interesting reading. For the record, UT2004 was my favourite (not played Unreal Tournament 3 though), and the weapons were all things of beauty in both design and usage. Saying that, i also loved the weapons in Quake 3 too (albeit they're also some of the most unimaginative designs ever!), simply because they are so well balanced. And i also love the COD guns because i can identify with their "realness" and firing them fulfills all my boyhood soldier fantasies.
Another example of many, many "similar" guns that actually works well in a klik game is Friendly-Strike 3. I think it worked rather well in that game.
this topic is way out of hand. all I asked for was for constructive criticism on the drawings, not a full blown argument on if its better to have more or less weapons
Sorry Sumo - I think I have to take a lot of the blame for that.
Why don't you post an update to show how far you've got now, and I promise to keep my comments sprite-related (maybe start a new thread...)
Originally Posted by Sumo148 this topic is way out of hand. all I asked for was for constructive criticism on the drawings, not a full blown argument on if its better to have more or less weapons
By TDC standards? No it's not. In fact, this is actually very inline with what one should expect from TDC. Well, minus a huge fight and flame war, I think we handled this topic a lot more maturely then most topics that flare up on this site.
Why is every one so worried about threads being 100% on topic? Rarely when I talk to anyone do we stay on the same subject for a long time, I wouldn't begin to imagine days at a time.
/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/-=?=-/
That Really Hot Chick
now on the Xbox Live Marketplace!
It's about courtesy towards the OP, he/she has an interest in the topic and shouldn't have to wade through huge posts in search of the info asked about. And it's not very hard to start a new thread if you come up with an interesting sidetrack.
IRL this isn't of importance (except for certain situations).
My point was that, if the original poster was looking for a more guided discussion, checking in on their topic more frequently would have been a big help.
Dude rolls in two weeks later, wondering why the discussion has wandered? In my opinion, courtesy could extend both ways. It's unfortunate the topic diverged, but hey, like they say on the ranch: if you let the open girls mingle with the ready boys unattended, you'll have a lot of babies at the end of the year. The internet is full of distractions and reasons to stray off-topic; guide it, or tolerate it.
For my part, I think the art looks great for a "shop display." Sumo has done excellent work on several past projects. I totally wish them the best.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Tell me what you think.
Edited by Sumo148
