[HN Gopher] MAR1D: First-Person Mario ___________________________________________________________________ MAR1D: First-Person Mario Author : rendaw Score : 355 points Date : 2022-10-12 15:21 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (mar1d.com) (TXT) w3m dump (mar1d.com) | CodeWriter23 wrote: | I'm just saying this hack is the work of a deranged programmer. | marcodiego wrote: | > Site proudly uses no javascript | | Great! There should be a way for google to prioritize this kind | of site. | takoid wrote: | Marginalia does this surprisingly well: | https://search.marginalia.nu/ | [deleted] | ojr wrote: | "this site proudly uses no javascript", nerdy sites that don't | use modern css and or modern javascript most of the time have | subpar user experience, I don't read past the first sentence, it | traps yourself into a niche of developers who don't mind an ugly | Design tradeoff | [deleted] | vlunkr wrote: | In what way could you make the experience of this site better | with js? | dylan604 wrote: | i think they are just taking the piss out of people that say | similar regarding sites that put up dark UI elements that | prevent/slow down the reading of a site so that people bounce | quickly. only, it just wasn't a good attempt at whatever was | being attempted (humor/parody/sarcasm???). then again, maybe | i'm just being way too nice to a non-coherent thought? | nfw2 wrote: | You could actually play the game | vlunkr wrote: | It's not a browser game, so no you couldn't. | nfw2 wrote: | I meant that with JS, you could make a browser game, | which would be a better experience. | JadoJodo wrote: | Something I've never understood about 2D/Flatland as a "visual" | idea: | | In the case of this Mar1d, if I'm on the X-axis, and can only see | the Y-axis, wouldn't any amount of detail in the Z-axis | constitute a 3D image? The Y-axis stretched even a single "pixel" | along Z would make it 3D, right? | | Similarly, for Flatlandia: If I'm a 2D square on the X-axis, and | can see "around" me on the Z-axis, wouldn't my ability to see | anything make the Y-axis be > 1? | LeifCarrotson wrote: | The Z axis can be imagined to be infinitesimally narrow. | There's no information in the stretching of the Z axis, so you | can make that single color of data in the as visible as you | like without adding any information. | | Our eyes see in two dimensions, so a Mar1d world with a Z axis | one Plank length wide would still have the same colors, but | it's impossible to see. | tomxor wrote: | Yes, it wouldn't be 3D, but what you are alluding to is | projection (X onto Y, or more generally instead of X which | would be orthogonal only, a 1D plane of any orientation - AKA | line segment) ultimately you are still looking at a 1D image, | but it has a 2D shape projected onto it that changes depending | on both your orientation and position, so that you can perceive | part of the 2D shape's surface as you move. | | And this would be more physically correct than either Mario or | Mar1D. | | The generalisation, starting in 3D, is that you can project the | _surface_ of a 3D object onto a 2D plane (which is how we | see)... we get a little bit more by gauging depth through | stereo separation but ultimately we only get to see one 3D | projection onto a 2D plane at any point in time, i.e the entire | 3D surface is not accessible, we can 't see behind it, or | inside it, and the perception of 3D is constructed in our mind | from a combination of general learned/evolved intuition of 3D | space and shape and temporal samples for a particular scenario | e.g looking around the object from different angles. | | Projection can extend to higher and lower dimensions, e.g in 4D | space the surface of a 4D object can be projected onto a 3D | "plane"; and as you are suggesting, for 2D space you can | project a 2D object onto a 1D plane. The projection changing | depending on the orientation and position of either the shape | or eye/camera. | | Normal 2D game rendering doesn't really make any physical sense | as a projection unless you consider them to be a narrow 3D | world (consider the fact that you can see the entire surface of | a square _and_ inside of the square, but Mario the character | cannot possibly see this, only a small part of the surface). | | But this is all based on a "projection" with the assumption of | a lot of opacity... if each particle received from the | projection also contained accurate enough depth information and | was a vector of all depths traversed for some limit, then full | 3D could be perceived in a single 2D projection within a 3D | world i.e if you could see "through" objects while still being | able to sample each depth. | couchand wrote: | Your last comment reminds me of being in thick fog, where | distances can be easily estimated by gauging how obscured the | object is. | d23 wrote: | I think you're right, and while I think something simple like | fading in and out the elements based on distance would be | reasonable (since the game would be unplayable otherwise, as | you'd be able to see the entire level), the choice they appear | to have made (something non-orthographic) seems to essentially | be fully encoding the extra dimension. Otherwise, I can't see | how the goomba would appear to get bigger as it gets closer to | mario. | Bakary wrote: | In a properly 2D universe, there would be the equivalent of | some sort of planck length that is essentially the only length. | The equivalent of a string of one-bit messages that shift | around. We chose to visualize it through something that has | width because we are unable to properly understand the | alternative. | ryanisnan wrote: | If the width of a pixel along the Z-axis is arbitrary, and you | only see one, no, it would not be 3D. It's still 2D, you just | have the ability to more easily see. You gain no new | information. | cassianoleal wrote: | I'm with GP on this one. You say "width of a pixel". That | width is a dimension. If that dimension exists, along with X | and Y, then it should 3D. | | And that's when talking about video-games or computer | graphics. In the Flatland example, there are no pixels. The | characters shouldn't be able to see each other or the | structures on their 2D plane at all. | Bakary wrote: | They can if you see it as some sort of one-bit messaging as | opposed to traditional vision | bee_rider wrote: | Characters in a flat universe would have different sensory | organs than us, talking about "sight" seems more like a | translation for humans. "Sight" is a highly directional, | high-resolution, low-latency sense, the physics of it... I | mean the characters might not even understand it, we didn't | for the vast majority of human history. | | All of physics would have to be different anyway, down to | really fundamental stuff like how quantities which spread | from a source radially operate, since we'd be looking at | perimeters rather than surface areas. | jakelazaroff wrote: | Don't think of the "width of a pixel" as what you'd see | from the perspective of that 2D plane -- think of it as a | _2D projection_ of a 1D space. | fnordpiglet wrote: | No, it's not. A dimension requires freedom to be | parameterized and independence from other dimensions. In | this example "Y" is invariantly defined as 1. Similarly a | level surface defines a dimension to a fixed value and | provides an n-1 dimensional view of a n dimensional view. | Mapping this to a level surface you declare Y=1 and only X | is varying. Y has scale but no dimensionality due to its | lack of freedom. | bee_rider wrote: | I think we have to imagine 2D Mario, as a being which lives in | a 2D world, has his "sight" via an organ which has evolved | differently from a human eye. So, the the viewport with a | single wide pixel is really just an appropriate visualization | for us 3D beings. | EmilyHughes wrote: | Correct. That's why this game is 3D and not 1D. | chc wrote: | I think you're imagining a projection of a 2D world into three | dimensions and correctly observing that it's three-dimensional. | | Imagine a 2D world with two squares and a circle. One of the | squares pushes the circle and it rolls into the other square, | impacting it. This is all plausible in a purely 2D setting, | right? Assuming that these objects can't take up the same 2D | space, it makes sense that the square would be impacted by the | circle. This is how vision works -- photons bounce around and | our eyes sense them. There wouldn't actually be any Z-axis to | what you're seeing, you'd just be registering 2D photon- | equivalents moving in two dimensions. But in order to represent | it as something our brains can recognize as "seeing," we have | to project the input into some non-zero dimension. | | A different representation could emphasize this point better. | You could have this same basic game, but instead of first- | person, have it be third-person but with actual vision | simulation, so that you only see the parts of objects that | Mario would see and everything else is simply absent. | babypuncher wrote: | It's basically a 2D game but they replaced the width dimension | with depth. Wolfenstein 1-D [1] is a true 1-dimensional game. | The game is represented by a single straight line of pixels, | and player movement is restricted to a single axis. | | 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenstein_1-D | derefr wrote: | A thing photographers / image-effects people think about a lot: | pixels aren't little squares; they're _sample points_. | | If you've ever played around with graphics-rendering -- UV | coordinate sampling, convolution, etc -- then you know that you | can think of a (2D) raster image as really being a grid of | samples of what color you get when you look at the UV | coordinate represented by the center of that grid-point on some | underlying hypothetical continuous texture. | | Which is to say: if you have a pixel-art image (i.e. one | created at pixel scale, pixel by pixel, rather than created | with continuous-art techniques and then scaled down), and you | want to scale it up "conservatively", without making up any | information that doesn't already exist in the image -- then the | right way to do that _isn 't_ to blow up the pixels themselves, | nearest-neighbour style (as if the hypothetical underlying | texture is a tessellation of infinitely-sharply-bounded little | squares); but _nor_ is it to stretch the image with bilinear | /cubic/etc. resampling (as if the hypothetical underlying | texture is a continuous blend from the color at the center of | each sample into its neighbours.) | | Really, the _conservative_ approach to enlarging a pixel-art | image, is to throw your hands up and give up -- because you | actually _don 't have the information_ for what occupies any UV | coordinate of the underlying hypothetical continuous texture, | other than the exact center-point of each grid square, where | the pixel-art pixel sample is located. A pixel-art image, | created from scratch _as_ pixels, only really _tells_ you what | 's at the exact center point of each grid-square. Every _other_ | possible sample-point in each grid-square is left undefined. If | you picture an infinitely-small dot in the center of each grid- | square, with the rest left "empty", _that 's_ the data you | have about the "underlying image", from seeing a pixel-art | image. Anything beyond that is "compressed sensing" -- an | inference, not a logical deduction. | | But to directly address your point: you see pixels, because | that's how the game has to be _rendered_ -- as a 2D extrusion | -- for it to show up on a screen for you to see. But in | concept, the game is giving you a one-dimensional array of | sample-points -- a sampling of an underlying hypothetical _one- | dimensional_ continuous texture. | fnordpiglet wrote: | No. To be a dimension there needs to be freedom. In this case | the Y is quantized at one pixel and there's no independent | parameter in that direction, just an invariant quantum. | grimgrin wrote: | my buddy once made a '1d roguelike' | | it is exactly what it is lol (aka 110 lines of bash) | | https://github.com/rupa/YOU_ARE_DEAD | metadat wrote: | Lol, this is hilarious. | xtiansimon wrote: | I was thinking a lot of weed was consumed in the making of this | project. | hijinks wrote: | waiting for the first group of people to speed run this | chadlavi wrote: | ow ow ouch my brain | | this is neat | an1sotropy wrote: | If you like this, you'll like Planiverse (1984) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Planiverse | | A bit like the classic Flatland book, this also imagines a 2D | world, and also fosters thinking about higher dimensions. But | there's a nice shift: if there's an "up" in Flatland, it points | out of the world, whereas in Planiverse, the up is in-world, and | we visit the world by looking at it from the side, rather than | from above. So the creatures of Planiverse would be _great_ at | playing MAR1D. | | Planiverse also creatively thinks through a lot of the physical | and mechanical realities of living in a 2D world, and is wrapped | in a poignant narrative about using computers to connect to | alternate realities. | | (ah shoot I just learned that the author has turned into a 9/11 | truther, but Planiverse remains a cool book) | lioeters wrote: | Planiverse is one of my all-time favorite books. Some tasty | morsels: | | The Planiverse: Computer Contact with a Two-Dimensional World - | Engineering Designs in Planiverse - | https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/courses/soco/project... | | --- | | > Dewdney wrote The Planiverse as..an allegory for his search | for a reality deeper than that of scientific enquiry, and his | subsequent conversion to Sufiism. | | We're the ones living in flatland, a planiverse of limited 3D | perspective, who yearn for higher dimensions of experience, a | glimpse of the beyond. Unfortunately it's not without risk, as | this way madness lies - either as a trap of illusion, or at | least as a step toward fundamental truth (if any). | egypturnash wrote: | _subsequent conversion to Sufiism._ | | Huh. That makes a lot of sense from what I remember of the | way the whole thing ended, with Yendred's time under the | tutelage of Drabk the Sharak. Hello weird names still stuck | in my head after thirty or so years. | | Not that this wasn't also a theme in Abbot's earlier | _Flatland_ , most of _his_ other writing was theology, and | it, too, climaxes with a mystical experience for its 2D | protagonist. But A. Square ends up back in his flat world, | writing from a madhouse, rather than transcending it and | going on to... something inexplicable. | | I have spent time poking against this sort of thing and | madness is definitely a possible result. | hobo_in_library wrote: | > I just learned that the author has turned into a 9/11 truther | | I don't get those folks. Personally, I identify as a 9/11 | falser. | worewood wrote: | Well, we see the world as a 2d projection BUT we (usually) have 2 | eyes so we have some amount of 3d-info. | | Maybe mario has 2 eyes too, which would give him some amount of | 2d-info. (Just like an MRI can construct a 2d slice from 1d | info). So the first person game should have maybe a depth info on | those pixels. | | What I mean, mario does not see only a line. He sees a silhouette | of what lies ahead of him. | samwillis wrote: | I think it would require one eye above the other to have depth | perception in his 2d world. | | Eyes can't even be side-by-side as that axis doesn't exist. | | Having said that, the human brain is capable of reconstructing | a 3d perception with only one eye through learnt understand and | interpreting the picture change over time as you move. I image | it's the same for Mario, but in 2d. | bmitc wrote: | > I think it would require one eye above the other to have | depth perception in his 2d world. | | Is his world actually 2D though? Or a 3D world projected down | to 2D? The latter is what I would expect. | diob wrote: | Yeah, as someone with a lazy eye 3d honestly isn't much | different than 2d. | WastingMyTime89 wrote: | But eye don't really see in 2d anyway. There are plenty of | tricks involved in the vision cortex based on how your head | moves and how your eye scans and accommodates for its 3d | field of view. It's far more complex than just producing a | 2d image for the brain to interpret. | wellthisisgreat wrote: | In original Mario he does have only one eye though, and it's | on the side of his face? | dfxm12 wrote: | No, Mario has two eyes. You can see the other when you go | the other way. | dusted wrote: | exactly, if mario had stereo vision, it'd have to be his eyes | were on top of each other.. And just like how 3D games | projected onto a 2D monitor are not much different from their | VR counterparts, a 2D game projected into stereo 1D wouldn't | be much more interesting either.. | | I thought about it, how our eyes are placed on the sides, | probably because we're very earth-bound, and horizon lies | that way and such.. It'd be really interesting if we had an | additional third eye on our forehead, it'd give us a bit more | detailed depth perception, but I don't think it'd be that | much more useful. | astrange wrote: | Also, human eyes aren't passive sensors like cameras. We move | them (consciously and unconsciously) to gather more info as | we need it. | | And we have a few unconscious abilities like seeing light | polarization that can help: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4528539/ | xwdv wrote: | 2D Mario doesn't have two eyes, he has one. If he is drawn with | two eyes the second one would be inside his body and would not | see anything as it's view is blocked by pixels. | layer8 wrote: | If you look at the initial zoom, his eye actually lies within | his head, so it's unclear how he can see anything at all. | xwdv wrote: | That is strange. | checkyoursudo wrote: | Semi-transparent head, probably. But it means he can only | see light intensity, which is why he falls into holes and | runs into dangerous objects on the regular. | UmYeahNo wrote: | If we take it further, even the eye "we" _can_ see is blocked | by the bridge of his nose, so I doubt he actually sees | anything. | zeristor wrote: | What would the people in a Picasso picture see? | | There's one for Dall-e Mario level as painted by Picasso | pyrale wrote: | You can see Mario has two eyes on his death animation, | though. | sebastialonso wrote: | this is the kind of arguments I come to Hacker news to read | about. | tysehr37 wrote: | It's beautiful | [deleted] | [deleted] | meitros wrote: | no wonder he needs your help to complete levels | joshxyz wrote: | thats hilariously good, well done sir | layer8 wrote: | Article about the 80s version: https://hard- | drive.net/retrospective-we-look-back-at-super-m... | jamesjyu wrote: | I bet you could still train a neural net to complete the levels | only using the 1D slices as input. | Bakary wrote: | Would it even be that much more difficult for the net than 2D | Mario? | jamesjyu wrote: | My gut says it'll be a tad more difficult since you won't | have any data beyond what's directly in front of mario. Maybe | the AI will end up doing a bunch of rapid peeks to determine | next move, especially when there are large pits. | bitwize wrote: | I get it, but I still prefer these: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBb9wFP7uZM | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf-2Imh6a54 | commandlinefan wrote: | Ha, that's more or less what I was hoping the link would be. | capableweb wrote: | Correct me if I'm wrong, but those seems to be 3d | renderings/animations rather than interactive games, different | class :) | jerf wrote: | I think the idea is that just because Mario takes place on a | 2D plane doesn't mean we're obligated to assume that Mario is | literally a mathematical two dimensional figure. These videos | may still be very silly in terms of a real-world situation, | but they're no more or less "correct" than the linked video | for the original post. | piggybox wrote: | LOL, that's pretty hard | ClassAndBurn wrote: | This is like the first half of Flatland visualized[1]! | | I always found imaginating Square's point of view a fun | challenge. Seeing a world, I otherwise recognize the same way | gives it a whole new dimension. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland | cheschire wrote: | This is neat. I love fun with dimensions like this. This 4D | minecraft clone is a similarly fun thing. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8LMyWcKL_c | tysehr37 wrote: | Interesting, their way of demonstrating a 4th dimension is very | unique. love how it became a game mechanic | imbusy111 wrote: | That is a terrifying way to live your whole life. | nigerianbrince wrote: | Someone out there might feel the same way about us. (2d vision) | vadansky wrote: | Now you know how Tralfamadorians think about us | smoldesu wrote: | Plumbing does _not_ get any easier when you lose a dimension 's | worth of eyesight. | OscarCunningham wrote: | You can't even connect three houses to three utilities. | thomastjeffery wrote: | Reminds me of Fez | seanmcdirmid wrote: | This approach lacks perspective (well duh). It reminds me of the | Flatland book, when people from 3D worlds experience 2D ones. | yissp wrote: | See also, the glEnd() of Zelda http://tom7.org/zelda/ | capableweb wrote: | That's 3D though, not nearly as interesting as 1D Mario :) | mzs wrote: | sort of, start here: https://youtu.be/xDxjbXAqTPg?t=647 | dusted wrote: | I wonder if I still have my prototype somewhere, exactly the same | thought.. We humans exist in 3D space, yet perceive the world in | 2D (with some additional depth perception added).. Sooo.. our | perception is 1 dimension less. If someone were to inhibit only 2 | dimensions, they'd perceive one dimension less, so 1D. Now, to | translate that back into something a human could see, it'd just | be... bands.. My engine had the bands extend the entire width, | but same thing. I also made a 1D version, where you.. yes, move | along a single axis, and your perception is thus 0 dimensions, | simply a point (extended to fill the entire screen) that changed | brightness. | | I also made another one were you were a a typical 2D platformer | character, but with the ability to rotate around your own Y axis, | so the levels were fully 3D environments, and it sliced a plane | through the world with the origin being the player character. You | had to turn around yourself a lot to get an idea of the | environment. | nfw2 wrote: | - Site proudly uses no javascript | | Embedding the game into the browser using JS and WebGL seems like | the obvious way to let people experience it easily. Most people | aren't going to download it. | [deleted] | latchkey wrote: | Darn, I was hoping to see things rotated 45' ccw and viewing from | the back of mario running forward towards a horizon (almost | appearing to run uphill) and then jumping onto blocks and pipes | as if they are coming at him. | mynameisash wrote: | I was hoping to see something that would be even half as fun to | play as Mari0 [0], which is a SMB + Portal mash-up. | | [0] https://stabyourself.net/mari0/ | twic wrote: | Made me think of another one-dimensional crawl game, Line | Wobbler: | | https://wobblylabs.com/projects/wobbler | | I'm not sure how well the site and videos explain it, but you | control a green dot trying to travel along a line. You have to | beat or evade enemies, lava, etc along the way. You control it | with a spring door stop, but that's not what it's about. | bscphil wrote: | I love this. | | Another way to 3D-ize a 2D (sidescrolling, platform) game, if | someone wants to take it as inspiration: rather than assume the | (infinitely thin) 2D plane of the game to be 1 pixel thick, | assume that everything in the 2D plane has _infinite_ depth. | | Because of perspective, this will look very different than 1 | pixel stretched horizontally, which is what this game does. In | fact, with a little shadowing and applying the object textures to | the z-y axes of the object rather than the x-y axes, I expect | many 2D games would actually be playable like this. I think the | results would be bizarre, but extremely fun for fans of the game. | imwillofficial wrote: | I don't get it, what am I missing | forgetfulness wrote: | We normally see Mario's world from an external vantage point | that doesn't exist in his. | | Imagine a normal brick in our world, what we see are | projections of the outside surface, but we of course can't see | inside the brick, not without breaking it at least, but then | you end up with a series of smaller objects that you can only | see from the outside, again. | | Likewise, Mario wouldn't be able to see the shapes we see | because we're looking at the totality of them, the outside and | the inside, all at once, because we're 3D, but they are not. | | He would only be able to see the outside, which in his case are | the lines making up the contours of the bricks, goombas, etc. | imwillofficial wrote: | If it's 2d only, wouldn't his perspective be an infinitely | thin line? Or am I being too literal and missing the point | forgetfulness wrote: | Probably, but there still would be distinct "points" in so | far he can perceive them. We need them stretched out a bit | but there's not two pixels in this game's width dimension, | it's the same point stretched out in our screens, never is | there more information besides one pixel than another in | our screen in the horizontal axis from what I can tell. | justusthane wrote: | I'm surprised by all the dismissive comments here. This is a | really clever and thought-provoking idea, and I believe that is | the spirit in which it is intended (rather than as an "actual" | game). | mrmuagi wrote: | It's reducing a 2d game into a 1d one which kind of nauseating | -- I thought by the title it would be like Super Mario Oyssey | with a first person camera. | incanus77 wrote: | When I want a game where a plumber gets warped into a mushroom | kingdom and fights turtles by jumping on them, I want realism, | dammit! | tomrod wrote: | Game of Thrones style? | tomcam wrote: | It's a brilliant, creative idea and the small-mindedness here | is disappointing. | joshl32532 wrote: | You can't call all criticism as small-mindedness. | | This might be brilliant and creative to you, but to some this | is just not that impressive, technical or otherwise. | tomcam wrote: | > You can't call all criticism as small-mindedness. | | You appear to be hallucinating. Where did I do that? | | > to some this is just not that impressive | | Of course I agree with that point because, you know... | opinions | [deleted] | Y_Y wrote: | Well I think it's shit. It's a not-so-interesting view of the | kind of perspective change you get from something like | http://tom7.org/zelda/ and I resent the suggestion that the | reason I don't like it is my own smallmindedness. I have many | flaws but that isn't one of them. | [deleted] | nano9 wrote: | > This is a really clever and thought-provoking idea, and I | believe that is the spirit in which it is intended (rather than | as an "actual" game). | | It seems more like an elaborate joke to me. I can see people | being annoyed after being teased with the notion of a new game, | only for it to be a gag. | danjoredd wrote: | inb4 Nintendo DMCAs | ugh123 wrote: | TBH I was hoping for something a little more "realistic". I just | see a line of squares moving around and seems unplayable. | olah_1 wrote: | Yeah I was hoping for something more like the Cruis'n USA | racing games where the world is scrolling at you and your | character stays stationary. | dm319 wrote: | There are several VR 3D Super Mario Bros adaptations which are | easily found on google. But of course they have to take | liberties in the Z plane. | tomerv wrote: | Something like this? | | http://tom7.org/zelda/ | dan_quixote wrote: | tom7 is awesome. He made an awesome and hilarious video years | ago about his SIGBOVIK paper/research on AI playing NES: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOCurBYI_gY | WFHRenaissance wrote: | I vaguely remember this being a thing in ~2014? Maybe earlier? | ogoparootbbo wrote: | how is this 1d when there is a second dimension albeit small? | the_af wrote: | If you mean the line doesn't have a single pixel width, this is | what the website explains: How is this 1D? | The game is more than one pixel wide! The game | width can actually be adjusted, including to a width of one | pixel. That's how I prefer to play, but other people had | trouble seeing what was going on. Regardless | of how much you stretch it though, there is only one dimension | of information, the horizontal smear is entirely redundant. | Your computer's pixels have some amount of depth to them, but | that doesn't mean the games you play on them have 3 dimensional | viewports. | malkia wrote: | What if you create several parallax projections and play how many | would be enough to get something more playable - 1.5D :) | ffhhj wrote: | Expected a Wolfenstein 3D kind of game like: | | https://youtube.com/watch?time_continue=650&v=xDxjbXAqTPg | furyofantares wrote: | Mario has very poor eye placement for a 2d character and | shouldn't be able to see anything but his nose. | Shared404 wrote: | I quite enjoyed the writing style on the landing page as well as | the content. | | Very reminiscent of BDG/Unraveled. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-12 23:00 UTC)